
amMUW.fr H* 





Class 
Book 



SMITHSONIAN DEPOSIT 



V-f f 



VII 



Maryland's Attitude in the 
Struggle for Canada 



JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 

IN 

Historical and Political Science 

HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor 



History is past Politics and Politics present History.— Freeman 



TENTH SERIES 



VII 



Maryland's Attitude in the 
Struggle for Canada 



By J. WILLIAM BLACK, Ph. D. 

Associate Professor of Political Economy, Oberlin College 




baltimore 
The Johns Hopkins Press 

PUBLISHED MONTHLY 

July, 1893 



I%- 



COPYKIGHT, 1802, BY THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS. 



THE FKIEDENWALD CO., PRINTERS, 
BALTIMORE. 



PREFACE 



This paper is a study of the attitude of Maryland in the 
French and Indian War. Maryland failed to do her duty in 
that great international struggle between the French and 
English for the possession of North America, and it was 
chiefly due, first, to the narrow and niggardly policy of the 
Provincial Assembly, and secondly, to the dissensions of 
the Province with the Proprietary government for the pur- 
pose of limiting and, perhaps, overthrowing Proprietary 
rule. The recent publication of portions of the Maryland 
Archives, under the able editorship of Dr. William Hand 
Browne, has rendered interesting parts of the history of 
Maryland accessible to students. The Sharpe Correspond- 
ence (Vols. I. and II.) covers the period from 1753 to 1761. 
It contains much valuable information regarding Maryland's 
policy during the French and Indian War, and helps to 
explain the motives of her peculiar conduct. It has been my 
purpose in this paper, therefore, to present briefly the results 
of a study of the Sharpe Correspondence and the Proceed- 
ings of the Assembly during these years, for the purpose of 
throwing new light upon Maryland politics at that time. 
Since Maryland's behavior was due largely to disputes with 
the Proprietary, I have attempted to trace each dispute from 
its origin, in order to arrive at a correct understanding of the 
controversies of the time. We shall find that out of what 
was really a derelict and obstructive policy developed a 
commendable spirit of resistance in 1765, which led finally to 
independence. The sources that have been most serviceable 
to me in this study are : — Archives of Maryland : Corre- 



6 Preface. 

spondence of Governor Sharpe, Vols. I. and II.; Assembly 
Proceedings, first three volumes of Archives, and especially 
the Journals of the Lower House between 1753-1758 ; 
Council Proceedings, 1692-1694; Bacon, Laws of Maryland, 
1637-1765; Pennsylvania Colonial Eecords, Vols. VI. and 
VII.; Dinwiddie Papers, being Vols. III. and IV. of Virginia 
Historical Society Collections ; Franklin's works, and other 
authorities, references to which are made in the foot-notes. 

J. W. B. 



CONTENTS. 



I. Introduction : page. 

Maryland a Proprietary Colony 9 

Frederick, Lord Baltimore 10 

Sharpe, Governor of Maryland 11 

Strength and Resources of the Province, Defenses 11 

Attitude of the People toward their Government 12 

Development of Eepresentative Government 12 

II. French and Indian War : 

Backwardness of Maryland 15 

French and English Claims 15 

Ohio Company 16 

Maryland's Aid requested ; Her Inactivity 16 

Albany Congress 18 

Maryland votes £6000 19 

Gov. Sharpe proposes a Poll Tax or Stamp Duty 20 

Union to be enforced by Parliament 21 

Lack of Unity among the Colonies 21 

Braddock's Defeat ; Danger of the Province 24 

The Activity of Other Colonies 25 

III. " Bones of Contention." 

The Assembly vs. the Lord Proprietary 27 

Causes of Maryland's Inactivity 27 

Revenues of the Proprietary : Territorial 27 

Concessions of the Province 28 

1. Collection by the Lord Proprietary of Taxes regarded as uncon- 

stitutional 28 

Port or Tonnage Duty 28 

Tobacco Tax 30 

2. Interference with the Colony's Right to Levy Taxes 35 

Ordinary Licenses , 35 

Tariff on Convicts 40 

3. Paper Money Controversy 43 

Assembly displays its Ignorance of the Principles of Exchange 45 

4. Refusal of the Proprietary to share the Burdens of Taxation. . . 46 

Action of the Assembly on Supplies 46 

Private Subscriptions 47 



8 Contents. 

Assembly wins a Point 48 

1756, a vote of £40,000 49 

The Land Tax 49 

Taxation of Proprietary Estates 50 

Lord Baltimore's Indifference and Parsimony recoil upon him 52 
Wisdom of Sharpe's Course, although he allows the Assem- 
bly to score another Point against the Proprietary 53 

5. Pennsylvania's Influence upon Maryland 53 

Land Tax in Pennsylvania ; a Concession secured 54, 56 

Maryland adopts Pennsylvania's Tactics 56 

Franklin's Influence 58 

Pennsylvania's Victory over her Proprietaries 59 

IV. Conclusion : 

Dawn of Independence 60 

Maryland's Indifference and "Unseasonable Parsimony" in 

the French and Indian War 60 

Crown Requisitions ; Treatment of Roman Catholics 61, 64 

Opposition to Proprietary Rule 66 

Where was the Assembly at fault ? 66 

Explanations ; the Proprietary at fault 67 

Real Designs of the Assembly : 

To limit Proprietary Authority 68 

To play into the Hands of the Crown 68 

Indications of this : 

Petitions to the Crown 69 

Calvert's Proposition to bribe the Assembly 69 

Franklin's Second Mission (1764) to London 72 

No Desire for Union or Independence 72 

Oppression of Great Britain ; Stamp Act 73 

Union a Necessity , 73 

Maryland's Opposition to Proprietary Rule a Preparation for 

the Struggle with the Crown, and finally Independence 73 



MARYLAND'S ATTITUDE IN THE STRUGGLE 

FOR CANADA. 



CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

The French and Indian War in America began in 1754 
and continued until 1760, when Canada fell into the hands 
of the English. The French were successful for the first 
four years of the war, and the frontiers of Virginia, Mary- 
land and Pennsylvania were at the mercy of the enemy 
during that time. The length of the struggle surprises one ; 
certainly the English were stronger than the French in 
numbers and resources, and might have repelled the aggres- 
sions of the French in America by one or two decisive blows. 
It is true that England did not lend a helping hand in this 
colonial war until 1755, and at first sent out several inefficient 
commanders, but the chief cause of ill-fortune was the failure 
of the colonies to cooperate with one another and with Great 
Britain. While the colonies were organizing or trying to 
organize, the French were advancing under good leadership 
and encircling their opponents. 

To a Marylander studying this period the following ques- 
tion suggests itself: How did my State behave? Certainly 
Maryland's welfare, indeed her very existence, was at stake ; 
did she do her duty? These questions will be discussed in 
the following paper. 

Maryland and Pennsylvania were the only colonies that 
remained under the Proprietary form of government down to 



10 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [316 

the Revolution. Maryland's charter was a very liberal one ; 
it gave large and extensive powers to the Proprietary, while 
at the same time it guaranteed the freemen of the province a 
voice in the laws by which they were to be governed ; further, 
it contained one important and significant provision, namely, 
that no "imposition, custom or other taxation, rate, or con- 
tribution whatsoever " should be laid upon the province. 
Maryland was thus secured by the terms of her charter from 
an imposition of any kind on the part of Great Britain. 
Before the middle of the eighteenth century the colonies, 
particularly the Southern and Middle colonies, acted inde- 
pendently of each other in affairs of common concern, such 
as defense against the Indians. A union of all the colonies 
for their common defense had more than once been suggested, 
and efforts leading to that end were made from time to time. 
New England, for many reasons, physical and otherwise, was 
the first center of this movement, but the nearest approach to 
a general union was that suggested by the Albany convention 
of 1754. Indeed, down to this time the colonies had been 
unwilling to sacrifice any of their privileges for the sake of 
union, but with the progress of the war this feeling changed ; 
as they saw their welfare threatened and their rights invaded, 
a sense of common interest impelled them to stand shoulder 
to shoulder in defending their territory. It proved a valuable 
lesson to them, for they received their training for the great 
conflict, so little anticipated, yet so soon to come. The Stamp 
Act cemented the confederation which the French and Indian 
War had begun. 

The year 1751 marked the accession of Frederick, sixth 
Baron of Baltimore, as Lord Proprietary of Maryland. He 
was an unworthy scion of his ancestors, George and Cecilius 
Calvert. We find very few letters from Frederick among 
Gov. Sharpens correspondence, and these are brief. He 
always appeared indifferent to the needs and welfare of his 
province, caring only for what he could get out of it, and his 
principal instructions to Sharpe were to see to the prompt 



317] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 11 

collection of his revenue and to promote the interests of 
certain persons designated by him. 1 

In 1753 Horatio Sharpe became Governor of Maryland, 
and continued in that office until 1769, occupying a position 
by no means enviable in these troublous times. The Governor 
was the intermediary between the Proprietary and the people. 
He was forced to obey the instructions of the Proprietor, and 
was usually regarded with undeserved dislike and suspicion 
by the Assembly for doing his duty. Sharpe steadily followed 
the difficult path of duty, however, better than most men in 
a like station. He was zealous in his efforts to carry out the 
instructions of the Crown, of the Proprietary, whose sworn 
deputy he was, and at the same time to appease the Assembly. 
Sharpe did all he could to arouse the Assembly to a sense of 
their danger, and engaged actively in raising troops and 
supplies for the service. He was constantly meditating on 
some expedient to overcome the obstinacy of the burgesses, 
sometimes suggesting that a poll-tax or stamp-tax be imposed, 
or that Parliament should take measures compelling the col- 
onies to contribute their quotas. Sharpe even advanced from 
his own pocket bounty money which was used to enlist volun- 
teers for frontier service. Subsequent history shows that 
his courage and fidelity to the trusts imposed on him were 
rightly respected. 

The population of Maryland in 1756, as given by Sharpe 
in a report to the Lords of Trade, was 107,963 white and 
46,225 black inhabitants, and of the former, Sharpe estimates 
that 26,000 were able to bear arms, all exemptions considered. 2 
The militia of the province numbered 16,500, one-third of 
these being destitute of arms and the rest but poorly equipped. 
Another source of anxiety to Sharpe was his ill success in 
securing the passage of a good militia law by the Assembly, 
for the people were poorly armed, undisciplined, and could 
not be compelled to serve. As Sharpe said, there was nothing 

'Vide Sharpe Cor. I. (Archives of Md.), 1753-1757, pp. 206, 127. 
2 Sharpe Correspondence, I., 353. 



12 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [318 

in Maryland deserving the name of , fortification ; Fort 
Cumberland was probably the nearest approach to it, but 
this was too far off in the wilderness to be of any great 
service. The military defenses of Maryland were in a very 
precarious state ; she was fourth or fifth in strength among the 
colonies, but this strength was unorganized, and the territory 
of the province was, as said before, at the mercy of the enemy. 
Let us look briefly at the attitude of the province toward 
its government. In the beginning the Proprietary was every- 
thing to the colony; but by successive steps the Assembly 
acquired privileges that belonged to the Lord Proprietor and 
made itself the real governing body of the province. Though 
large powers were given to the Lord Proprietor, the terms 
of the charter provided for the participation of the colonists 
in the legislative functions, the Crown having no direct super- 
vision over the colony. To Lord Baltimore and his heirs, as 
Proprietors of Maryland, was granted the power to make 
laws for the province "by and with the advice, assent, and 
approbation of the said province, or the greatest part of them, 
or of their delegates or deputies." At first, the Lord Pro- 
prietary took the initiative in proposing legislation ; the laws 
proposed were ratified or rejected at a mass-meeting of the 
freemen of the province. It was only a short time, however, 
till representative government developed. After 1638 the 
Provincial Assembly holds the initiative in legislation ; to the 
Proprietary is left the veto power only. By an act passed at 
this session, provision was made for the election of delegates 
to the House of Burgesses, this body to consist of represen- 
tatives elected by the freemen of each hundred, together with 
members of the Council, Lords of Manors, and any other 
"gentleman" summoned by special writ of the Proprietor. 1 
In April, 1650, the Assembly met in two distinct branches ; 
the Governor and his Council forming the Upper House, and 
the Burgesses the Lower House. 2 The Delegates, or Bur- 

1 Maryland Archives, Assembly Proceedings, 1637-1664, pp. 74, 75, 
81, 82. 
*Ibid., p. 272. 



319] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 13 

gesses, were the elective representatives of the people; the 
Council, which formed the Upper House, represented the 
Lord Proprietor, and its members were summoned by special 
writs. They were the advisers of the executive, and at the 
same time formed one branch of the legislature. Frequent 
wrangling resulted between these two branches of the legis- 
lature, the one being the protector of the liberties of the 
people; the other, the conservative defenders of their lord's 
prerogatives. The popular branch continually gained ground 
at the expense of the prerogatives of the Lord Proprietary, 1 
and by 1650 the Lower House had secured firm control of 
legislation in Maryland. This is evidenced by an act passed 
in that year, whereby it was enacted that "no Subsidies, ayde, 
Customes, taxes, or impositions shall hereafter bee layd 
assessed, leavyed or imposed upon the freemen of this Prov- 
ince or on theire Merchandize Goods or Chatties without the 
Consent and Approbation of the freemen of this Province 
their Deputies or the Major parte of them, first had and 
declared in a General Assembly of this Province." 2 In 
1689 the Lord Proprietor lost his political rights in the 
province and Maryland became and remained a Crown colony 
till 1715. During this time Proprietary government lost 
much of its prestige, and the revenues which Lord Balti- 
more was still allowed to enjoy were attacked by the Assembly. 
Those of a public nature it desired to transfer to the Crown, 
to be used for the support of the province. The volume of 
legislation increases largely at this time, and we notice that 
laws were only made by the Assembly for short periods; 
old laws were continually repealed and reenacted; in this 
way the Assembly managed to keep a secure hold upon the 
government of the province. Besides they enacted against 
the Catholics severe laws, which gave offense to a large 

] An act of 1638 declared that a General Assembly of "Freemen of the 
Province " should have "like power priveledges authority and Jurisdic- 
tion . . . as the house of Commons within the Realm of England " . . . 
Assembly Proceedings, 1638-1664, p. 75. 

' 2 Assembly Proceedings, 1650, p. 302. 



14 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [320 

element of the population. It is true this was the looked 
for result of Protestant ascendency and narrow-minded legis- 
lation; but it was opposed to the spirit of the Proprietary 
government, and rebuked the liberal policy of the Lords 
Proprietors. 

By the time the Proprietary government was restored, in 
1715, Maryland had almost learned to do without it; neither 
did its restoration give rise to any marked joy or loyalty on 
the part of the people, nor did it regain its former political 
status. From now until the French and Indian War we note 
the increasing dissensions between the Assembly and the 
Proprietary ; many of the privileges of the latter were gradu- 
ally and imperceptibly slipping away. In 1739, during 
Governor Ogle's administration, an attack was begun upon 
the revenues of the Proprietary, and was only concluded by 
the overthrow of the Proprietary government itself. This 
leads us to an explanation of the causes that underlay the 
conduct of Maryland during that war. The Lower House 
had become the mainspring of the provincial government ; 
it assumed the protection of the liberties of its constituents, 
endeavored to make laws for the people and not for the Pro- 
prietor, and not only defended their rights and privileges 
from any encroachment by the Proprietary, but in turn 
encroached upon the prerogatives of that government. The 
Assembly now saw and decided to take advantage of a favor- 
able opportunity to wrest from Proprietary rule in Maryland 
the last vestiges of its power. 



CHAPTER II. 

FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR. 

That the events which follow may be clearly understood, 
it will be advisable, first, to give a brief sketch of the early 
period of the French and Indian War, pointing out the part 
played by Maryland. 

The French and Indian War was a struggle between two 
great nations for the possession of the North American 
Continent. Every colony was deeply concerned in the issue 
of the contest. The French were the first to explore the 
Mississippi valley, several expeditions being made in the 
latter part of the seventeenth century. The claims of the 
English, of course, were based on the discoveries of the 
Cabots, Raleigh, Gilbert and others, and the colonial charters 
vaguely describe the grants to 'the colonies as extending 
westward to the " South Sea" or extending between two 
parallels of latitude " from sea to sea." 1 The old grudges 
between France and England were thus carried to America, 
and the most hostile feelings existed between the two all 
through the eighteenth century, especially from the peace of 
Utrecht, 1713. Toward the middle of the century each of 
the two nations made haste to occupy as much territory as 
possible. A collision could not long be avoided. The 
French asserted their sovereignty to the territory west of the 
Alleghanies, and strove to carry out the gigantic scheme of 
connecting Canada and the great lakes with Louisiana and 
the Gulf of Mexico by a cordon of fortified posts for the 
purpose of hemming in the English colonies and preventing 
their expansion toward the west. It was their steady advance 
in realizing this idea that so terrified the colonists. 

Charters of Va. and Mass. -Dinwiddle Papers, Vol. I., 381. 



16 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [322 

The conflict was precipitated by the formation of the Ohio 
Company (1748), which was organized by a party of Vir- 
ginians ; to them was given a grant of 500,000 acres on the 
Ohio river, chiefly to the north of it and between the 
Monongahela and Kanawha. Their purpose was trade with 
the Indians, and in return for the privileges given them 
they agreed to induce migration thither and build a fort to 
protect the settlement. The French took active steps to 
repel this advance of the English into disputed territory, and 
occupied the Ohio valley with their forces at once. As this 
was a direct attack upon Virginia land, Gov. Dinwiddie made 
preparations to oppose it, and duly informed ih^ Lords of 
Trade of their encroachments, their apparent designs, and the 
alarm that existed among the colonists. Some supplies were 
sent him, and at the same time it was suggested that the 
various Assemblies of the colonies should send representa- 
tives to a common meeting-place for the purpose of making 
a treaty with the Six Nations 1 and providing measures for 
defense. Gov. Sharpe of Maryland received a letter 2 from 
Lord Holdernesse, Secretary of State, warning him of the 
approaching hostilities of the French and Indians on the 
western frontier, urging him to be on the alert, to put him- 
self in close communication with other Governors, and when 
occasion demanded it, to convene his Assembly and to bring 
before it the necessity of mutual assistance and cooperation. 
The same communication was sent to all the provincial gov- 
ernors, and from this time on Maryland was constantly 
appealed to by Virginia and the British government. In 
October, 1753, Gov. Dinwiddie sent Major George Washing- 
ton to the commander of the French forces on the Ohio, " to 
know his reasons for his invading His Majesty of Great 
Britain's Dominions." 3 The mission of Washington proved 
unsuccessful, and Gov. Dinwiddie then began active prepar- 

1 The famous Indian Confederacy of Western New York. 

2 Sharpe Correspondence, P., 3, 4. 

z lbid., I., 10. Dinwiddie Papers, I., 49, note. 



323] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 17 

ations for defense. In this, however, he met with con- 
siderable opposition from his own Assembly, and secured a 
vote of supplies with difficulty. He was much embarrassed 
in his plans, and as the exigencies of the times called for 
cooperation on the part of the governors of the colonies, he 
sent letters to them, in which he recounted the results of 
Washington's mission, the strength and designs of the French, 
and asked immediate aid. 1 In April, 1754, hostilities began 
with the capture by the French of an English fort which 
Gov. Dinwiddie had ordered to be built at the junction of 
the Alleghany and Monongahela rivers, and which the con- 
querors strengthened considerably and named Fort Duquesne, 
after the Governor of Canada. 2 Dinwiddie's energies were 
fruitless for the time, and he complained bitterly of the lack 
of help; in a letter to James Abercromby, agent of Virginia 
at London, after passing a compliment upon the behavior of 
North Carolina, he writes, — " Maryland and Pennsylvania, 
two Proprietary governments, do nothing, though equally 
concerned and more exposed than this dominion. . . .This is 
an affair of the greatest consequence to the Nation and the 
Colonies on this Continent." 3 In the meantime, a body of 
Virginia militia, with Washington second in command, had 
been sent by Gov. Dinwiddie to protest against the proceed- 
ings of the French commander, Contrecoaur, and on the 
march learned that the fort had been taken. Washington 
defeated a party of French under de Jumonville in a pre- 
liminary skirmish ; but a large force were now advancing 
from Fort Duquesne to attack the English, and Washing- 
ton, who had succeeded to the chief command, fell back to 
Great Meadows, on a branch of the Youghiogeny, where he 
awaited the enemy. Here he hastily erected rude defenses, 
and gave them, from the nature of the occasion, the name of 
Fort Necessity. Washington, however, was unable to with- 

1 Dinwiddie Papers, I., 61-73. 

2 Fully treated in Sharpe Correspondence, I., 197. 

3 Dinwiddie Papers, I., 211. 



18 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [324 

stand the superior numbers of the French, and therefore 
surrendered (July 3, 1754). This he did upon honorable 
terms and returned to Virginia. 1 

Meantime, in accordance with the suggestions of the 
Board of Trade, a general convention was held at Albany, 
June 19, 1754, and commissioners were present from seven 
colonies. Maryland was among this number, but it was 
with difficulty that Sharpe prevailed on the Assembly to 
provide for the commissioners appointed by the Governor 
and to vote a purse of <£500 as a present to the Six Indian 
Nations, and in reference to his proposition that they aid 
Virginia Sharpe writes : " So insuperably indifferent or 
perverse were they that all they consulted was how to 
save appearances and seem to be disposed to encourage 
that important enterprise." 2 The purposes of the con- 
vention were, first, to make a treaty with the Six Nations ; 
and secondly, to form a plan of concerted action among 
the colonies to drive away the French. The Indians 
were appeased with presents. The second object was then 
taken up and debated, and a union of all the colonies was 
declared necessary. A plan, devised by Franklin, was pro- 
posed and adopted. 3 This plan, however, provided for a 
perpetual union, which was certainly premature, and Mary- 
land for one was not prepared to favor it ; in consequence, 
her Assembly rejected it by the unanimous vote of its mem- 
bers. Nevertheless, this step toward uniting the colonies 
into one government was very significant, for it was the 
forerunner of confederation. The Albany congress made no 
preparations for defense, but decided to await the action of 
Parliament upon the scheme for union which had been pro- 
posed. The surrender of Washington, July 3, 1754, caused 
considerable alarm to the Southern provinces, and the gov- 

1 For terms of the capitulation of Washington vide Sharpe Cor. I., 78-79 
(extract from Calvert Papers). 

2 Sharpe Correspondence, I,, 69. 

3 Franklin's plan and comments: vide H. W. Preston, ''Documents 
illustrative of American History," pp. 170-187. 



325] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 



19 



ernors bestirred themselves to raise men and supplies. Gov. 
Dinwiddie again complains : " What a poor situation am I 
in, in executing the commands of his majesty ; no assistance 
from the neighboring colonies ; Maryland and Pennsylvania 
so obstinate as not to grant any supplies whatever." l He 
said that Virginia was not able to bear the burden of the 
war alone, and had already suggested on June 18, 1754, that 
Parliament compel each colony to raise a proportionate quota 
of the general fund. This proposition was repeatedly made 
by him to the Secretary of State and Board of Trade. Pie 
writes : " The intolerable obstinacy of our neighboring colo- 
nies and their disobedience to His Majesty's commands is 
not to be paralleled in history ; if they had entered heartily 
into the affair, I am assured the French at this day would 
have been drove off the Ohio, and I am of (the) opinion, 
nothing will bring them to their duty but a general Poll Tax 
of 2s. 6d. sterling, by a British Act of Parliament." 2 How- 
ever, Maryland, whose frontier was exposed to the enemy, 
with no defenses to hinder their advance, was sufficiently 
aroused to a sense of her danger to vote (February 25, 1754) 
a supply of <£6000, to be appropriated to the aid of Virginia ; 
but this grant was conditional upon the yielding of certain 
concessions by the Proprietary government. The Maryland 
Assembly was still as " obstinate " as ever. 

The English government, aroused by the imminence of 
the danger, made preparations to take an active part in the 
campaign. They deemed it necessary to send out a general 
officer to take command, for it was thought that Sharpe and 
the other colonial governors would have all they could do to 
enlist men and secure funds from their Assemblies. A land 
expedition against Fort Duquesne and a naval expedition in 
North American waters were determined upon ; and General 
Edward Braddock was ordered to America with two regi- 
ments to take command of the land forces in America. 

In the meantime, Governor Sharpe, who had had military 

1 Dinwiddie Papers, I., 253. *IMd., I., 254. 



20 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [326 

experience, was appointed to the chief command, with the 
rank of lieutenant-colonel, for Maryland was looked upon 
as a good center from which to operate against the French. 1 
He was in a state of constant anxiety, but did his best to 
raise forces and obtain supplies with which to carry out his 
instructions as commander-in-chief. But Sharpe by no means 
received the encouragement he had hoped, and therefore 
could not expect to execute his commission " with any great 
eclat "; " I wish I may be able to do it/ 7 he says, " with some 
small reputation." 2 His appointment, however, was only a 
temporary one, and he was superseded by Braddock upon 
the latter's arrival on February 20, 1755. The reception 
General Braddock met was far from encouraging. 

Sharpe brooded constantly upon some remedy for the per- 
verseness of colonial Assemblies. He echoed the views of 
Governor Dinwiddie and others as to the proper method of 
securing the cooperation of the colonies, and suggested to 
Cecilius Calvert, uncle and secretary of Frederick, Lord 
Baltimore, September 15, 1754, that if it were thought 
proper to bring in a bill in Parliament to compel the colo- 
nial governments to contribute their quotas, one of the 
following ways might be proposed to raise the funds: 1. By 
imposing a poll tax ; or, 2. By a duty on the importation of 
spirituous liquors ; or, 3. By a stamp duty — on deeds and 
writings. " These hints," he says, "I have taken the liberty 
to submit to you in case the British Legislature should 
think proper to interfere in this American contention more 
than it has hitherto done." 3 This gives evidence of the 
extremities to which the governors were driven, but radical 
measures were not attempted by England, and indeed it is 
doubtful if they could have been enforced. Governor 
Sharpe lived to see his suggestion tried and fail. The 
English government resorted to the more prudent but less 
imperative method of Crown requisitions. It was expected 

1 Sharpe's commission, vide Sharpe Cor. L, 73-74 (July, 1754). 

2 Sharpe Correspondence, I., 110. 3 Ibid., I., 99. 



327] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 21 

that the raising, subsisting and quartering of troops raised in 
a province should be provided for by that province, but that 
affairs of more general concern should be paid for out of a 
" common fund/' x to be established for the benefit of all 
the colonies, collectively, in North America. And it seems 
to have been the intention of Great Britain to form a plan 
for the general union of the colonies for defense, for it was 
mentioned in a letter from Sir Thomas Robinson, Secretary 
of State, to Gov. Sharped and Gov. Morris, of Pennsylvania, 
wrote 3 to Sharpe that he had received hints from England 
that a plan of union for military purposes was under the con- 
sideration of the ministry. No such measures were put into 
effect, however ; union could not be forced upon the colonies 
in accord with the dictates of Parliament,— it had to come 
from within. 

During this period of their history the lack of unity 
among the colonies in facing a danger which menaced them 
all alike was very marked ; but in one thing there seemed to 
be considerable unity, and that was the almost universal 
resistance which the colonial Assemblies offered to their gov- 
ernors when attempting to carry out their instructions. We 
see this even among the New England colonies, but especially 
south of New York, so that Gov. Sharpe, in the autumn of 
1754, said that by this time he had learned "not to entertain 
very sanguine hopes of the resolutions of American Assem- 
blies." 4 Their professions of regard for his Majesty's inter- 
ests were loyal enough, and supply bills were freely pre- 
sented ; but the fact is, all the Assemblies looked upon this 
as a good opportunity to establish the liberties of the com- 
monwealths on a firmer basis, and hence, when voting sup- 
plies, they attached to their bills objectionable clauses, sought 
to wrest important concessions from their rulers, and gain 

1 Sharpe Correspondence, I., 108. 

2 October 26, 1754. 

3 December 3, 1754. 

4 Sharpe Correspondence, I.. 109. 



22 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [328 

for themselves complete self-government. Of course, these 
objectionable bills the governors were obliged to veto in the 
interest of their proprietors, or the English government 
itself; and Sharpe complained that they "endeavored to cast 
an odium on their respective governors by laying them 
under the necessity of rejecting such bills as were presented 
them." 

However, when the alarm in the Ohio Valley became more 
general and the war assumed greater proportions, New Eng- 
land came forward and contributed her share ; New York 
lent liberal aid ; New Jersey seemed to partake of the infec- 
tion that possessed Pennsylvania and refused to do anything; 
"they seem to have had nothing else in view at their' meet- 
ings," says Sharpe, "but to show the greatest disregard of 
and contempt for the old gentleman's recommendations " 1 
(referring to Gov. Belcher). Virginia had contributed 
£10,000 and soon afterward £20,000 more, and Maryland 
had contributed £6000 besides the £500 given to the Six 
Nations. 

Maryland had constantly before her the example of her 
sister Proprietary colony, Pennsylvania ; 2 Sharpe was con- 
tinually expressing fears that the obstinacy pf the Pennsyl- 
vania Assembly would have an influence upon that of Mary- 
land, and subsequent events prove that the latter was inclined 
to be subservient to the policy maintained by the former. 
The terror of the inhabitants on the western frontier was very 
great ; the Indians made many incursions upon Maryland and 
Virginia soil, killing a number of families and destroying their 
property. This occasioned great alarm and many of the people 
in the western part of the province abandoned their homes; 
such was the state of affairs until the arrival of Braddock 
raised their hopes. Fort Cumberland was the only protec- 
tion which the western inhabitants had, and this was inade- 
quate ; small forces only could be raised for the defense of 

1 Sharpe Correspondence, I., 110. 

2 Pennsylvania's influence on Maryland, see below, ch. III., sec. 5. 



329] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 23 

the frontier. On April 14, 1755, General Braddock met the 
colonial governors 1 at Alexandria, and a plan of operations 
was agreed upon, Braddock hoping to enlist the active sym- 
pathies of the colonies. In this, however, he was to be 
disappointed. The Assembly of Maryland was again called 
to vote a supply, but Sharpe was able to do nothing with 
them. The deaths of twenty-six of the " distant inhabi- 
tants/' as a result of the encroachments and devastations of 
the French and their savage allies, had no effect upon the 
Assembly, for they "set nothing in competition with the 
points for which they were contending/' and, says Gov. 
Sharpe, " the lives and safeties of the people must submit 
to their caprice and humour." He was obliged to prorogue 
the Assembly until the following year, for they refused to do 
anything, except upon their own conditions. Braddock was 
much incensed at the cold reception which he received 
from the provincial Assemblies, and was highly displeased 
that no common fund was provided for his disposal in prose- 
cuting the war. He communicated with the governors, 
Sharpe among the number, stating his expectations and the 
quota which each should furnish. Sharpe again proposed a 
poll tax, and urged, besides, that the power to levy the tax 
be taken from the Legislature and put in the hands of the 
several Governors and Councils, in order to "prevent useless 
disputes and controversies." 2 Sharpe, in his anxiety to obey 
instructions, called a meeting of his Assembly for June 23, 
1755, but with no sanguine feelings ; he looked forward to a 
series of disputes, and thought that rather than aid Braddock 
they would indulge in fault-finding because his troops had 
carried off servants, carriages and horses belonging to the 
inhabitants over whose lands they had marched. 

The Assembly offered £5000, but the measures proposed 
for raising the loan were such as the Governor could not 
sanction. Sharpe was much disconcerted and distressed to see 

1 Governors of Va., Md., Perm., N. Y., and Mass. 

2 Sharpe Correspondence, I., 203. 



24 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [330 

the condition of the people on the western frontier without 
being able to help them. He was led to say, u the Assembly 
will never recede from the points that his Lordship's instruc- 
tions oblige me to insist on tho' half the province should 
be depopulated." x He even thought, should Braddock have 
"taken the French Forts on the Ohio/' he could not hold 
them, for the colonies would not support a garrison or supply 
it there " without compulsion." 

The Braddock expedition against Fort Duquesne, as is 
well known, ended in complete failure ; 2 suffice it to say that 
the failure, which was due to the lack of effective cooperation 
on the part of the colonies coupled with Braddock's own lack 
of good judgment, gave the French an alarming advantage, 
for it was followed by the disgraceful retreat to Philadel- 
phia of Col. Dunbar, 3 who commanded the forces after the 
death of Braddock, and the abandonment of the field; this 
left the frontier without defense, except such as a hundred or 
two half-starved provincial troops could give. All the bar- 
riers were thrown down, and Sharpe thought that 2000 regu- 
lar troops with as many Indians could have marched to the 
Chesapeake almost without hindrance; for such was the 
opinion he had of the 18,000 Maryland militia and the Vir- 
ginia troops. If the French had taken full advantage of their 
victory they might have made the invasion of Maryland an 
entering wedge and thus have cut the colonies in two, as the 
British afterwards attempted to do during the Revolution. 
However, this was not done, for efforts were now being made 
to oppose the French in the north ; and the latter, seeing 
that the real struggle would be in Canada and on the lakes, 
withdrew a large portion of their forces from the Ohio. But 
much injury was committed and some blood shed on the 
defenseless frontier ; the western inhabitants were terrified 
and fled to the more populous sections of the province. 

1 Sharpe Cor. L, 239. 

2 Orme's account of Braddock's defeat, July 9, 1755 ; Sharpe Cor. I., 252. 
3 Dinwiddie Papers, II., 139. 



331] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 25 

Governor Sharpe did what he could to stop this flight and 
persuade the people to return to their homes. Fort Cumber- 
land was garrisoned by provincial troops, and several small 
palisade forts were constructed and occupied by volunteers ; 
these served as places of refuge for the panic-stricken people. 
The cost of these defenses was defrayed by private subscrip- 
tions contributed by the Council and people. 

Down to February, 1756, all that was contributed toward 
the campaign was £6000 and a small force of troops. New 
York and Pennsylvania did better than this, although the 
latter, considering her danger, was also slow to act. New 
Jersey did as well. Virginia, though at first more directly 
affected, contributed nearly <£100,000 and a larger force 
of men in the same time. Even South Carolina was not 
more backward than Maryland. This was so despite the 
fact that the latter province was looked upon as the center of 
action ; her own governor, in consequence, being appointed 
commander-in-chief temporarily. 

Sharpe was powerless to control events. However, a small 
company of sixty men under Captain Dagworthy was raised 
to accompany Braddock. Maryland had no effective militia 
law, and the Assembly could not be prevailed on to pass 
one, so that the difficulty in raising and disciplining troops 
was next to that of securing a vote of supplies. Gov. Sharpe 
estimated that the three colonies, Maryland, Virginia and 
Pennsylvania, alone could furnish 80,000 men, but it was 
with the greatest difficulty that a few hundred could be 
pressed into service and supported. 

After Braddock's failure, the conquest of Fort Duquesne 
was left to the southern colonies, and Sharpe was constantly 
importuned to attack it, but never secured support enough 
to risk the attempt. Nothing was done against the fort 
until 1758. Gov. Shirley, of Massachusetts, was appointed 
commander-in-chief of the American forces to succeed Brad- 
dock, and this was an indication that the war against the 
French would be fought out largely by New England. 



26 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [332 

Though nothing aggressive was done south of New York, 
nevertheless Gov. Sharpe did not cease his efforts to secure 
a handsome appropriation from his Assembly for the pur- 
pose of defending the frontier and aiding Shirley in the 
north. The exposure of the western inhabitants to French 
and Indian raids occasioned constant alarm, and the pressure 
brought upon the Assembly was very great. Something had 
to be done at once. The Assembly yielded; at the next 
session (February 23, 1756), a vote of £40,000 was passed. 
But Sharpe was still much discouraged, for he said his 
experience had taught him that there was a " wide difference 
between voting a sum of money and granting or raising it." 
The money was raised, however, and used for defense, but 
we shall find that in this case it was the Proprietary and not 
the Assembly that had yielded. 



CHAPTER III. 

"BONES OF CONTENTION." 

The Assembly vs. the Lord Proprietary. 

A Marylander can feel little pride, nay, rather humiliation 
for the conduct of his State during this period of her history. 
Upon whom rests the responsibility for this attitude of Mary- 
land at such a time? Upon the Proprietary? upon the 
Province? or upon both? To find an explanation of the 
backwardness of the Province, let us examine the points at 
issue between the people and the Proprietary government. 
They were as follows : 

1. The collection of revenues by the Proprietary which 
were regarded as illegal ; for instance, the port or tonnage duty 
and the tobacco tax. 

2. Interference with the colony's right to levy taxes and 
control public revenues ; for example, the contest about the 
tax on ordinary licenses and the duty on imported convicts. 

3. The paper -money controversy. 

4. Refusal of the Proprietary to share with the Province 
the burdens of the war and waive his right to the exemption 
of his estates from taxation. 

5. The example of her sister colony, Pennsylvania. 

The revenues 1 enjoyed by the Proprietor fall into two 
classes : first, those which arose from his ownership of the 
soil, vested in him by the charter, or so-called " territorial 
rights." They were : 1. Quit rents, or small fixed charges 
received by the Proprietary from lands subgranted by him. 
2. Caution money, a revenue that arose from a new system, 
adopted in 1683, whereby any person could sue out a war- 

1 Kilty, "Landholder's Assistant," pp. 254-26S. 



28 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [334 

rant for land upon the payment of a certain sum, called 
" caution money." 3. Alienation fines (including fines upon 
devises), sums paid to the Proprietary for the privilege of 
conveying land from one person to another. These were 
private rights of his lordship. 

Secondly, those which rested upon the bounty of the people 
and were granted to him in his sovereign capacity as ruler 
of the Province, or so-called "rights of jurisdiction." They 
were : 1. The port or tonnage duty. 2. The tobacco duty. 
3. Fines and forfeitures. 4. Duty on ordinary licenses; 
hawkers' and peddlers' licenses and a few others of no special 
importance. These were the public revenues of the Pro- 
prietor. While both these classes of revenue were sanctioned 
by the charter, there was still a wide distinction between the 
two. When, in 1689, the Proprietary government lost its 
authority, the Proprietor also lost, for the time, most of his 
public revenues but he retained his private revenues as 
landlord of the soil. 

1. — Collection by the Lord Proprietary of Taxes 
that were regarded as unconstitutional. 

The public revenues of the Proprietor were constant 
" bones of contention " between the Assembly and Lord Balti- 
more ; it was these that caused most of the disputes that 
arrested the cooperation of Maryland in the French and 
Indian War. Although the port or tonnage duty originated 
in 1646, it was first permanently levied by the Act of 1661 
entitled "An Act for Porte dutyes and Masters of Ships." 1 
It was enacted that . ..." all vessels not belonging to the 
province, having a deck flush fore and aft, coming in and 
trading within the Province should pay for Port Duties or 
Ancjiorage half a pound of powder and three pounds of shot 
or so much in value for every ton of burden to the Lord 
Proprietor and his heirs." . . . But it was afterward com- 

1 Assembly Proceedings, 1661, p. 418. 



335] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 29 

muted to fourteen pence per ton, and this revenue was enjoyed 
by the Proprietor unmolested until 1692. At this time, 
Maryland being under Royal government, the port duty was 
claimed by the Assembly as a public revenue. The Assem- 
bly urged the ingenious but false argument that the revenue 
was a fort duty and not a port duty ; that though the jour- 
nals of the Assembly and the original act itself had been 
lost or made away with, yet after a thorough examination 
into the reasons for making the law, they had found it " was 
for building of Forts and finding of powder and shott for the 
Country's use .... and the duty was always called by the 
inhabitants c Fort Duetys and not Fort Duetyes.' " The reve- 
nue amounted then to eight hundred pounds sterling annually, 
and it seemed to distress the Assembly greatly that the King 
should be burdened with the building of forts for the Province 
while the Lord Proprietor was allowed to enjoy this large 
revenue. 

The attempt to show that this revenue was a fort duty and 
not a port duty, if successful, would have classed it among 
other revenues granted for defense which were repealed by 
the general repealing act of 1704. The Proprietor's agents 
collected this revenue in peace until 1739, when the old sores 
broke out afresh and became more virulent than ever. A 
systematic attack upon the Proprietary revenues was then 
begun and continued down to the Revolution. The port duty 
proved a constant grievance, for the Assembly pronounced it 
contrary to the reason and institution of the duty in the act 
of 1661, and took the ground "that all taxes not imposed 
or at least sanctioned by themselves were illegal." The 
Assembly held that the duty had been repealed by the general 
repealing act of 1704. But legally the Assembly's case was 
a weak one ; the Grown did not assent to a repeal of the port 
duty in 1704. Moreover, the Assembly really recognized 
the legality of the port duty, for when, in 1733, provision 
was made for a redemption fund in the Paper Currency Act, 
the appropriation of this revenue for such a purpose was 
specially exempted. 



30 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [336 

Though a duty on exported tobacco was levied in Maryland 
as early as 1638, it was the act of 1671 that occasioned so much 
dispute subsequently. It was entitled an "Act for the Rayseing 
and Provideing a Support for his Lordship . . . dureing his 
natureall life . . . and towards the defraying the Public 
Charges of Government." 1 By this act the sum of two 
shillings sterling was imposed as a duty upon every hogs- 
head of tobacco which should be shipped " in any Ship or 
vessell " out of the province, but it was specially provided 
that one-half of the revenue thereby raised should be used 
for the constant maintenance of a magazine with arms and 
ammunition for the defense of the province and other public 
charges. A concluding clause directed that this act should 
continue during the natural life of Cecilius, then Lord 
Baltimore, and "for one Cropp more next after his decease 
and noe longer. " It was also agreed that the Proprietor 
should receive his rents and fines for the alienation of lands 
in good tobacco, when tendered, at the rate of two pence per 
pound. However, by subsequent acts, the act of 1671 was 
continued during the lives of his successors, Charles Calvert 
and Benedict Leonard Calvert. When the government was 
seized by the Crown in 1691, the tobacco tax of two shillings 
was collected and lodged in the public treasury, and when 
the first royal governor, Copley, entered upon his office (1692), 
the Assembly settled upon him one shilling, or one-half the 
duty which had been appropriated by former acts for the 
support and defense of the province. Lord Baltimore had 
always claimed the other half, as of the nature of a private 
contract between himself and his tenants, in consideration 
for the loss he sustained by receiving his quit-rents in tobacco 
at the rate of two pence per pound. Receiving no benefit 
therefrom, his agent, Henry Darnall, petitioned the Assembly 
for the privilege of collecting this and other of his lordship's 
revenues. The Assembly replied evasively, but the King 
approved his claim and he continued to enjoy the twelve 

Assembly Proceedings, Vol. II. (1666-1676), pp. 284-286. 



337] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 31 

pence tariff. On Sept. 19, 1715, it was raised to eighteen 
pence per hogshead, and in 1716 this revenue was further 
increased,, the Assembly purchasing the quit-rents and fines 
outright for a duty of two shillings per hogshead and an 
additional fifteen pence, twelve pence being for the support 
of the Governor, and three pence for arms and ammunition. 
These provisions were continued by an act of 1717, and were 
allowed to expire in 1733. Lord Baltimore thereupon, under 
color of the act of 1704, resumed the collection of his quit- 
rents and twelve pence per hogshead for the support of the 
government, which in the interval seems not to have been 
collected. It was continued without opposition until 1739, 
when trouble began, and the Assembly of 1739 spent a 
large portion of its session in discussing the legality of the 
tobacco tax. "During that period, 1733-1739, the Act of 
1704 was looked on as a Law in Force and Being," says 
Governor Ogle, " until some Gentlemen of new Light (for 
I find we have new Light in Politicks as well as in Reli- 
gion) lately undertook to undeceive us in this particular." 
The action of the Proprietor in collecting this twelve pence 
was denounced as illegal and unwarranted, and the Assembly 
took the untenable ground "that Acts passed during the 
period of Royal Government were not meant to extend to his 
Lordship, that the revenue had not been properly applied by 
the Proprietary, that the Law of 1704 was a l mixed con- 
sideration,' dependent upon the proviso that Lord Baltimore 
receive his quit-rents and fines in tobacco." . . . The Lower 
House adopts this report of its Committee on Grievances, 
insisting that they, as British subjects, " wish to maintain to 
themselves and their constituents the liberty ... of not 
being liable to the payment of any money, Tax, Impost or 
Duty, except such as are raised ... by themselves." To give 
evidence of their good faith, the Assembly passed a bill giving 
twelve pence per hogshead to the Governor for his support. 
This was an equivalent of the twelve pence of the act of 1704, 
the collection of which by the Proprietary officers was declared 



32 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [338 

illegal. The Upper House rejected the bill. Gov. Ogle 
tried to persuade the Assembly that they were in error, but 
they were not to be persuaded. The Lower House was not 
satisfied to let the matter rest here, and passed a bill for the 
appointment of an agent in London to lay their grievances 
before Lord Baltimore, and if he should fail to adjust them, 
to bring them before the King in Council. As the Lower 
House reserved to itself exclusive control of the agents both 
as to appointment and payment, the Upper House rejected 
the measure with the comment, — " A prettier Scheme for 
Power and Profit, in our little World of Politicks, can hardly 
be thought of." The Lower House argues ominously : " The 
people of Maryland think the Proprietary takes Money from 
them unlawfully, the Proprietary says he has a right to . . . 
his Majesty must determine and we must have a suitable 
agent in London to act for the people. . . . The people of 
Maryland have spirit enough and we hope will find means 
without this Bill to do themselves Justice." 

After opening this broadside upon the Proprietary, Mary- 
land kept up the fight without intermission until she became 
an independent State. The entire session of the Assembly 
of 1739 was given up to constant quarrels and bickerings 
between the representatives of the people and the partisans 
of the Proprietor, the Governor assuming the role of peace- 
maker. As a result, we find no new laws on the statute-books 
in 1739 and 1740. 

The Lower House was not to be frustrated in its efforts to 
secure an agent in London, and their persistence was rewarded 
with success. In 1740 a colonial agent was retained, and two 
addresses were prepared stating their grievances, one to the 
Proprietor, the other to the King, the latter to be presented 
only in case the former failed of its object. The address to 
the Proprietor was presented and its response was submitted 
to the Assembly in 1744. It was conciliatory in tone and con- 
tained thanks for the evidences of good will manifested by the 
colonists toward his Majesty's government, but beyond mere 



339] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 33 

empty promises and polite expressions it availed nothing 
toward the settling of the controversy. These differences 
with the Proprietary gave rise to a political faction which 
continued through the remaining days of the colonial period. 
At regular intervals down to 1771 resolutions were passed 
directed against the tonnage and tobacco duties, and the 
antagonism of this faction increased as the outbreak of war 
occasioned new demands for revenue. It was held that the 
law of 1704 was a perpetual one; it was denied that laws 
made for his Majesty's government would not hold under 
Proprietary government, for the province continued to be 
" the Kings Government." The " mixed consideration " was 
also denied to be a necessary part of the act, and the 
Assembly was scored because it had made no objection to the 
collection of the tax until 1739. "The Eight of the Act of 
1704," says Calvert, " is so undeniable Apparent with the 
Crown and with Lord Baltimore as his Majesty's Hereditary 
Governor of Maryland, Its Quality is unto a Diamond not to 
be altered but by its own Power." . . . But Calvert struck 
at the seat of the dispute when he hinted that " the present 
legislators do not possess the same kindly spirit toward the 
administration that their ancestors did." In justice to the 
Proprietary be it said there is no evidence among the laws 
of Maryland of a repeal of the act of 1704. The popular 
branch of the Assembly were clearly at fault in the view they 
took. It was the attempt of a political faction in the province 
to wrest from Lord Baltimore privileges that were properly 
his. There had grown up a strong party opposed to the 
government in everything, and if there had been no check 
upon their designs, or had the Lord Proprietary not been as 
liberal as he was, he might have been stripped of all his 
political rights ere this. As it was, Baltimore may have 
made a mistake in failing to make concessions which would 
have led to an adjustment of the difficulties between him and 
the people. The Assembly was unfortunate in having to 
deal at this time with a Proprietor who, unlike his predeces- 



34 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [340 

sors, cared little for his province and was of no benefit to it 
at all. Frederick was satisfied with Sharpens administration 
so long as he kept his income intact, bnt was unwilling to 
tolerate any petitions from the Assembly. The collection of 
the tobacco and tonnage duties remained ever afterward a 
standing complaint, and was often an excuse for a dispute or 
a delay in legislation throughout Sharpens entire term. 
Frequent attempts were made to mortgage this revenue when 
appropriating a supply, but in every case the bill was vetoed 
by the Upper House. 

In 1756 another effort was made to secure an agent in 
London to bring their troubles before the King in Council, 
and a paper was circulated among the people to raise sub- 
scriptions for the purpose. They had come to the belief that 
the duties were illegal and were very much wrought up. 
Sharpe appreciated the situation ; he confessed he thought 
the people unreasonable in their views, but urged Baltimore 
to allow the dispute to be brought before the Privy Council 
or be submitted for an opinion to the Attorney-General. 
Sharpe felt that if Frederick would but submit to a hearing 
he would be sustained, the people would be satisfied with the 
result and further controversy prevented. But Sharpens 
advice was not heeded, and Lord Baltimore peremptorily 
forbade him from hearing any proposal by the Assembly 
concerning the appointment of an agent. Sure enough, as 
Sharpe had said, Frederick's resistance confirmed many 
people in the opinion that the money was collected without 
the sanction of the law. However, payment was not resisted 
and the taxes were collected as long as Proprietary rule 
lasted, subject, though, to periodic condemnation. 

According to the Governor's estimate in 1756, the port 
duty yielded then a revenue of £800 or £900 annually ; the 
tobacco duty, £1400, most of which was the annual salary of 
the Lieutenant-Governor, the rest being paid to the Proprietor. 



341] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 35 

2. — Intekference with the Colony's Right to Levy 

Taxes. 

Ordinary Licenses. — The ordinary licenses were revenues 
that arose from annual fees exacted from the innkeepers of 
the province. They were first levied in "An Acte Pegu- 
lateing Ordinaryes and Limitting the number of them within 
this Province," passed by the Assembly in 1678. By the 
terms of this act a license fee of 2000 pounds of tobacco was 
imposed upon every ordinary keeper who kept an inn within 
two miles of the "City of St. Maryes," or 1200 pounds for a 
similar privilege in any county. 1 This was an annual fee and 
yielded a goodly revenue to Lord Baltimore, to whom it was 
granted. 2 It appears that the Lord Proprietor's secretary 
received the ordinary license fees from 1678 until 1692. 
They were given him by his lordship in lieu of certain clear- 
ance fees which had become more lucrative and therefore 
made the exchange desirable. This was public revenue, and 
in that eventful year, 1692, the Assembly, upon the plea that 
the Secretary only enjoyed it through his lordship's bounty, 
and that his lord was no longer in authority, transferred the 
ordinary license fund to the royal governor. Upon this, 
the Secretary appealed to the King and complained of the 
confiscation, which caused him a yearly loss of <£150. 3 In 
consequence, the King in Council disallowed this act of 
the Assembly, and the license fees were restored to the Sec- 
retary. Thus the Proprietor gained another point which was 
won through the aid of the Crown. Ordinary licenses were 
continued by various acts till 1729. 4 In 1735, 5 another "act 
for regulating Innholders and Ordinary keepers " was passed, 

1 The penalty for an attempt to keep without a license was a forfeiture 
of 10,000 pounds of tobacco. 

2 Or rather was taken by him, as his by prerogative. Sharpe Corre- 
spondence, I., 235. 

3 Council Proceedings (Md. Archives), 1692, pp. 386, 438, 451, 456. 

4 Bacon's Laws of Maryland, 1717, ch. 1 ; 1726, ch. 10. 

5 Bacon's Laws of Maryland, 1735, ch. 8. 



36 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [342 

which expired in 1740. The Assembly of 1739 had refused 
to renew this revenue to the Proprietor, and in 1740 the 
ordinary licenses were appropriated by law, with the consent 
of the Proprietor, to defray the expense of raising men for the 
Carthagena expedition, and in 1746 to help an intended expe- 
dition against Canada. In that way the ordinary license 
fees were mortgaged until 1754. 

By an act of 1735, hawkers, peddlers and petty chapmen 
were required to take out a license annually. This also 
yielded a fee of £5 for each license, which was given to the 
Proprietor for the support of the government. The act 
expired in 1740. 

Maryland, until 1753, had never been directly threatened 
by a French invasion. Although war had been carried on 
with the French for half a century, the Canada border was 
always the scene of action. The people of Maryland had 
consequently taken no part in this warfare, save by an occa- 
sional contribution. Even the purse of £500 to be pre- 
sented to the Six Nations at the Albany Congress was not 
secured from the Assembly without considerable wrangling 
between the two houses, for the Lower Branch wished to 
replace the money taken out of the Loan Office by " License 
Money and Fines and Forfeitures " arising from other 
sources. The Upper House resisted this invasion of Lord 
Baltimore's privileges. The dispute was finally settled by a 
resolution of the House of Delegates " to take <£500 current 
money out of the Treasurer's hand " to purchase presents for 
the Indians. Increased pressure and persuasion soon 
brought the Assembly to a sense of their duty, and in May, 
1754, an act was passed by the Lower House to appropriate 
£3000 in aid of Virginia, but it never became law ; for 
among the ways and means reported by the committee for 
raising the fund, an additional tax of £1 was placed on ordi- 
nary licenses, and a £3 annual license on hawkers and ped- 
dlers ; likewise additional taxes upon indented servants and 
imported negroes. No objection was made to the latter, but 



343] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 37 

the license fees killed the bill. A conference of the two 
houses led to an adjustment of the dispute, and the 
Assembly was prorogued until July. Sharpe, on becoming 
Lieutenant-Governor of the Province, had received private 
instructions from Lord Baltimore to order the Proprietary 
agent to receive the revenue arising from ordinary licenses, 
but he answered that it was impossible, for the license 
fees were already taxed to pay off a loan made in 1746 
and this had not been fully redeemed. Frederick wished to 
see no retrenchment of the Proprietary revenue, while 
the Assembly was determined he should share their bur- 
dens. The Proprietor had not received the license fees 
since 1739, and his only title to them previous to that 
time was the will of the Assembly. It was the prompt- 
ing of an indifferent and selfish spirit that now led him 
to interfere and prevent the province from appropriating 
this revenue for the public good. Ordinary licenses were 
not a permanent fund voted to the use of the Proprietor and 
his heirs. The purpose of the Assembly in imposing these 
licenses was the " better regulating of ordinary-keepers and 
limiting their number within the province." And to that end 
a tax had been placed which served incidentally as a source 
of revenue. It was granted to Lord Baltimore only, however, 
for temporary periods ; these grants were subject to renewal, 
and were accepted as gifts by the Proprietor till 1739, 
when the Assembly refused to continue them longer. Now 
that the Province needed public money, it proposed to claim 
its own and avoid the b>urden of an increase of taxation. 
Frederick's claim to this fund rested upon precedent alone, 
and even had it been stronger, he should have waived it in 
this time of public danger. His selfishness aggravated the 
tardiness of Maryland in responding to the appeals of her 
sister, Virginia, and the instructions of the English govern- 
ment. Sharpe, Frederick's own appointee, held these views, 
though he never expressed himself in language quite so 
strong. The provincial Assembly had long before entered 



38 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [344 

into a contest with its Proprietary for supremacy, and now that 
an opportunity offered, with the Proprietary government at its 
weakest stage, they meant to settle it in their own favor. 
Thus matters stood ; and the government was practically at 
a standstill when the people of Maryland received the news 
of Washington's surrender at Fort Necessity. The Assembly 
at this critical moment at once surprised and exasperated 
Didwiddie and the ministry ; Sharpe it irritated, but did not 
surprise, for he knew his men. Upon the defeat of Wash- 
ington, Sharpe called a special session for the consideration 
of a supply. He addressed the Assembly in these words : " In 
This Emergency the Hopes and Expectations of our Neigh- 
bors whom in Duty, Honour and Interest we are Engaged to 
Support and Defend are fixed upon us for assistance; and 
What must the World think of our Conduct or What Calami- 
ties may We not expect, if from an unseasonable parsimony 
We boldly look on while they are Cut to Pieces. The 
Boundless Ambition of the Common Enemy and Cruel Rage 
of their Savage allies now upon our Borders flushed with 
victory indespensably require a Vigorous and immediate 
Exertion of all Powers to check their Progress." 1 A fund 
for defense was recommended, and the Assembly responded 
promptly to the earnest appeals of their Governor, by acting 
upon his suggestion without delay. A vote of <£6000 current 
money was passed in aid of Virginia, and assented to by 
Governor Sharpe. Dinwiddie writes his congratulations to 
Sharpe, saying : " Washington's defeat has caused more than a 
victory, it has roused the spirits of our neighboring colonies." 2 
But notice that the ways and means 3 provided for raising 
this fund include ordinary licenses and a tax of one pound 
sterling on every imported convict. 4 At the time this supply 
was passed Sharpe had instructions not to assent to any bill 

1 Assembly Proceedings, 1754, July 17. 
2 Sharpe Correspondence, I., p. 76. 

3 Assembly Proceedings, 1754, July 25 ; Bacon's Laws, 1754, ch. 9. 

4 See below, p. 40. 



345] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 39 

appropriating the ordinary licenses. But necessity and the 
knowledge that a supply could not be secured any other way 
induced the Governor and his Council to yield to the Lower 
House. Sharpe begged the indulgence of his lordship and 
pleaded urgency as his excuse. Baltimore, on the contrary, 
far from being gratified at the behavior of his province, was 
displeased at the public appropriation of the license fees ; 
and although he had nothing to lose, for he had never received 
this revenue as long as he had been Lord Baltimore, never- 
theless Frederick did not become reconciled to the loss of 
this prospective revenue until September 9, 1755. The 
Assembly had gained its point and now became more deter- 
mined than ever. In the meantime, Sharpe was making the 
best use of his resources. He raised a company of one hun- 
dred men and sent them to Wills Creek to engage with other 
colonial troops in the erection of Fort Cumberland. This 
fort was erected to serve as an outpost for the frontier de- 
fense and as a base of supplies for expeditions against Fort 
Duquesne. Sharpe, contemplating an attack upon the French 
stronghold, sought again the assistance of his Assembly, and 
in December, 1754, the Lower House passed a supply of 
<£7000 to be provided by an emission of "notes of credit." 
But the provisions for sinking the same contained the old 
clauses concerning ordinary licenses and imported convicts, 
which Sharpe, in obedience to his instructions, was bound to 
reject. Again, in February, 1755, the Lower House voted 
a supply " for his Majesty's service," this time .£10,000, with 
the foreknowledge, no doubt, that the bill would not become 
a law. It contained the same provisions that were before 
objected to by the Proprietary and was rejected. But the 
Lower House responded by resolving that " they would not 
grant a Shilling by any other means "; consequently Sharpens 
project could not be carried out. These controversies between 
the representatives of the people and the agents of the Pro- 
prietor caused the defeat of effective legislation. Many of 
the Councillors and the Governor were wavering in their 



40 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [346 

belief that Lord Baltimore's claim to the ordinary licenses 
was a just one, but the instructions of his Lordship compelled 
them to act as they did. At the same time the Lower House 
was determined not to retreat from ground they had gained, 
and continued to dictate the uses to which the license fund 
should be put ; therefore nothing could be accomplished 
except by yielding to the House of Delegates. This was a 
bitter pill for his Lordship, but he had to take it at last. 

The question of foreign immigration has always been an 
important one in America. In the very infancy of Maryland 
the danger of unrestricted immigration was perceived, and 
laws were passed to regulate it and keep out undesirable 
immigrants, among whom were reckoned negroes, Irish 
papists, and convicts. Considerable revenue was raised 
from the first two classes. By an early law all imported 
negroes were bound to service and made slaves for life. 1 In 
1695 an imposition of ten shillings per poll, afterwards in- 
creased to forty, was placed on all negroes imported, while 
the same law placed a tax of only two shillings sixpence on 
white servants. 2 In 1704 a poll of twenty shillings, after- 
wards doubled, was imposed on the importation of Irish 
servants, " to prevent too many Irish papists being imported " 
into the province. These duties were continued throughout 
the history of the colony, except the tax on Protestant ser- 
vants, which was repealed in 1732. The Assembly had no 
complaint to make of these immigrants ; but with the impor- 
tation of convicts it was different, for other questions were 
involved, and of the three classes, " imported convicts" were 
the most obnoxious. It appears that the importation of con- 
victs began at an early date. The attention of the Assembly 
being soon called to this matter, steps were immediately 
taken to prevent the influx of these undesirable people. An 
act for that purpose was passed by the Assembly in 1676 : 
" Whereas it had come to their knowledge that severall no- 

^ssem. Proceedings, III., 203. 
2 Called " indented servants." 



347] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 41 

torious felons and malefactors, taken from the ' Comon 
Jayles/ had been imported and sold in this province as ser- 
vants ... it was provided that a law be enacted to prevent 
their landing . . . under a forfeit of 2000 pounds of 
tobacco by the Ship Master in each case." 1 It had been the 
custom to transport criminals convicted of theft, perjury or 
forgery, which were then capital offenses, to the colonies, to 
be there sold into servitude for seven or fourteen years, ac- 
cording to the enormity of their crimes. Their importation 
to Virginia was first begun by James I., but was soon ex- 
tended to all the colonies alike. Virginia passed laws to fix 
a small liability upon their masters for good behavior, while 
Maryland prohibited their importation outright. The act 
of 1676 was continued by several reviving acts, and in 1692 
a new law was passed, its object being to prevent the land- 
ing of convicts. However, their importation to America 
increased under George I., when the number of offenses for 
which a criminal was transportable was largely extended. 
In the meantime the law of 1692 had expired, and even dur- 
ing the continuance of the prohibitive acts no doubt many 
convicts were smuggled in. In 1723 the Maryland Assem- 
bly took the matter up again and passed an " act to prevent 
the evils arising from the importation of convicts and the 
better discovery of such when imported." Though passed 
by both branches of the Legislature, it was vetoed by Lord 
Baltimore. The reason alleged for shipping the convicts to 
the colonies was " the great want of servants " there. Hence 
these criminals, whose services to England were impaired 
or unnecessary, were sent abroad that they " might be the 
means of improving his majesties plantations by their labor 
and industry." Many of the colonies were incensed at this ; 
Pennsylvania put a poll-tax on them as early as 1729, and 
New York raised a great hue and cry against their importa- 
tion. 2 "We want people, 'tis true," they said, "but not 

1 Assem. Proceedings, II. (1666-1676), p. 540 : "An Act against the 
Importation of Convicted Persons into this Province." 
2 Pitkin, United States, I., 134, 135. 



42 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [348 

villains, ready at any time, encouraged by impunity, and 
habituated, upon the slightest occasion, to cut a man's throat 
for a small part of his property." Similar utterances ap- 
peared in the Maryland Gazette^ but Maryland had no 
redress while thus handicapped by her Proprietor. It is 
estimated that from three to four hundred felons found their 
way into her territory annually. 2 When the French and 
Indian War brought its demand for revenue, the Assembly 
hit upon Pennsylvania's plan and placed a poll-tax or duty 
of £1 on every convict imported. This duty was imposed 
primarily for revenue purposes, but moral considerations 
and the example of Pennsylvania were also causes of its 
imposition. Here came the rub : the importation of felons 
was authorized by special acts of Parliament ; several ship- 
masters were contracted with to transport them, and England 
gladly paid a bounty to get rid of this dangerous class of 
citizens ; aside from this, the contractors derived a large 
profit from the sale of the convicts and enjoyed a profitable 
monopoly. 3 Naturally they objected to having it curtailed, 
and consequently when a duty was imposed on convicts by the 
Act of 1754 a great cry arose from the contractors against it ; 
they threatened to memorialize Parliament. The duty was 
objected to by the partisans of the Proprietor, who urged 
that it clashed with the authority of Parliament and would 
draw a censure from Great Britain. Lord Mansfield, then 
Attorney-General, was appealed to ; he declared " the colony 
had no power to make such a law, because it was in direct 
opposition to the authority of Parliament; furthermore, 
granting that it were proper, colonial legislatures might with 
equal propriety lay a tariff upon or even prohibit the impor- 
tation of all English goods." He threatened that unless 
Lord Baltimore dissented to the Maryland act he would 

Maryland Gazette, July 30 and August 20, 1767. 

2 Pitkin, United States, I., 133. 

3 The convicts were sold at prices ranging from eight to twenty pounds 
sterling apiece, though £6 was considered a good premium. 



349] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 43 

" severely proceed " against it. This opinion was certainly 
faulty and was based upon the general ground of expedi- 
ency. If Lord Mansfield had taken the pains to examine 
the charter he would have found that to Maryland was re- 
served the exclusive right of levying duties upon commodi- 
ties imported into the province ; and if he had examined the 
records he would have found old laws actually prohibiting the 
importation of criminals. Maryland had a moral as well as 
a legal right to impose such a tariff. Gov. Sharpe, however, 
advised Baltimore to dissent to the act, giving the Attorney- 
General's opinion as his reason for such action, if he thought 
it would involve him in trouble with the Crown. This was 
not done, but the opinion, though given by the Attorney in 
his capacity as a private lawyer, and in nowise binding on 
the Assembly, was used to prevent the placing of duties on 
imported convicts in other supply bills. The duty of £1 was 
collected until the £6000 were sunk, and though it was vir- 
tually borne by the purchasers of servants, every subsequent 
attempt by the Lower House to tax convicts was opposed. 

3. — The Paper Money Controversy. 

About this time another important issue sprang up — the 
paper money controversy. Paper currency became an im- 
portant circulating medium of the Province in 1733. 1 To- 
bacco had always been the general medium of exchange, 
though other commodities were used, for instance, powder 
and shot, and payment in kind was common. Tobacco, 
however, was the most serviceable and obtainable and was 
never superseded in Maryland during her entire colonial 
period. The production of tobacco increased greatly and its 
value depreciated in consequence ; English money and other 
foreign coins were almost entirely driven from the Province. 
This fact explains the concessions that the Assembly was so 
willing to make down to 1733 in tobacco duties in return 

1 Scharfs Maryland, I., 273-280. 



44 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [350 

for a commutation of the Proprietary quit-rents. Attempts 
were made to keep English money in circulation, but with- 
out much success. Numerous foreign coins circulated in 
Maryland and laws were passed from time to time fixing the 
rates of exchange. But, on the whole, the currency of the 
province was in a confused state. In 1731, to relieve trade 
and secure a more stable and convenient medium of exchange, 
an emission of paper money was proposed, and an act was 
passed to emit £36,000 in " bills of credit"; not being ap- 
proved by the Proprietor, it was never enforced. But the 
Proprietary consent was won over in 1733 when an act was 
passed "for Emitting and Making Current, Ninety Thousand 
Pounds ... in Bills of Credit." This amount was struck, 
and the act provided that it should circulate for thirty-one 
years from September 29, 1733, and should be a legal tender 
in the province for nearly all payments; exceptions being 
clergy dues, tobacco and tonnage duties and other moneys 
payable to the Lord Proprietary. All " fees, levies and other 
duties," however, might be discharged in bills of credit, 
allowing the difference of £33 J- per hundred between sterling 
and currency. 1 This made the £90,000 equivalent to £60,000 
sterling. Various provisions were made to put the act into 
effect. A loan office was provided and three commissioners 
or trustees were appointed to superintend the payment and 
redemption of this currency, to keep account of all money 
passing through their hands and to receive securities for 
money loaned. For the redemption of this paper currency a 
duty of one shilling and threepence was placed on all exported 
tobacco for thirty-one years. The last clause fixed the periods 
for the redemption of the bills, two dates being set; the first, 
September 29, 1748, to March 29, 1749 ; during this time 
all bills brought to the loan office were to be cancelled and 
new bills issued to the value of two-thirds thereof, the other 
one-third being redeemed. It was expected that all old bills 
would be replaced by new ones at this first payment, though 

1 Bacon's Laws of Maryland, 1733, ch. VI. 



^1] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 45 

there was no obligation to that effect. However, the final 
redemption' of the residue of the bills in circulation was fixed 
for September 19, 1764, the expiration of the thirty-one years, 
the statutory limit. This clause is an important one, as we 
shall see, for it was the cause of much contention between 
the two houses of Assembly in 1755. At first, on account of 
the lack of confidence felt by the people in the fund provided 
for its redemption, paper money rapidly depreciated until 
.£230 currency was only worth ,£100 sterling. But as soon 
as the people became convinced of the " goodness of the 
fund," and when, in 1748, one-third was actually redeemed, 
the bills rose in value, and by 1753 £150 currency passed 
for £100 sterling. 1 

It seems that in 1748, the first period provided for 
redemption, all outstanding paper bills were not presented 
for reissue. Only £85,984 14s. were brought in, an 
amount lacking £4015 6s. of the original issue. " Some 
of the Politicians," says Sharpe, " who out of their singular 
regard for the Pocketts of their Constituents and perhaps 
their own Interest " 2 discovered that fact and proposed to 
make use of it to embarrass the government. A large majority 
of the House of Delegates were persuaded that the £4000 in 
question were destroyed by fire or other accidents, and that 
a new issue to the same amount would not affect the value 
of the currency, for it would not increase the sum provided 
for by the Paper Currency Act. While the exigencies of the 
time might have justified a reasoning after this fashion, yet 
it was treading dangerous ground to legislate upon a sup- 
position. There was little evidence that this amount of 
paper had been destroyed ; on the contrary, there was reason 
to believe that a great deal of it was still in circulation, for 
small quantities were held by people living at considerable 
distances from the seat of government, who did not think it 
worth their while to make a special trip to the Loan Office 

1 Sharpe Correspondence, I., 138, etc. 

2 Sharpe Correspondence, I., 162. 



46 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [352 

to have a small amount exchanged. When the bill for 
,£7000 was passed by the Lower House it was provided that 
£4015 6s. of it should be a new issue of the paper money 
office. 2 This was rejected by the Council for the reasons 
mentioned, and because it was thought dangerous to establish 
a precedent that might have led to other measures having 
for their effect the debasement of the currency. Maryland 
did not stand alone in this controversy, for New York and 
New Jersey had also refused to vote supplies except they be 
allowed a new emission of paper currency, and royal instruc- 
tions prevented their governors from consenting to this. 
Pennsylvania likewise was very anxious to " strike more 
paper." In Maryland the paper money controversy created a 
serious obstruction and blocked tighter than ever the wheels 
of administration. 

4. — Refusal of the Proprietary to share the 
Burdens of Taxation. 

Since the voting and expenditure of the supply of £6000, 
three fruitless sessions of the Assembly had been wasted in 
unsuccessful efforts to put the province in a state of defense. 
Their work was dissipated in disputes over ordinary licenses, 
imported convicts and the paper currency. Sharpens urgent 
appeals were in vain, and the Lower House remained firm in 
the conviction of the justice of its course. Neither side was 
willing to make any concessions to the other, and no agree- 
ment was reached between the administration and the dele- 
gates. All the while reports were sent from Fort Cumberland 
to the Governor concerning the frequent depredations and 
murders which were committed by the Indians among the 
"back inhabitants," 3 as the people in the western part of 
the province were called. These distressing facts were laid 

1 A rise in the value of the currency at this time would tend to give 
further credence to this view. 

2 The remainder was provided for by special taxes. 
3 Sharpe Correspondence, L, 365. 



353] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 47 

before the Assembly by the Governor, and the Lower House 
recommended a company of rangers to picket the frontier 
and .£1500 for their support; but the bill failed, presumably 
because it contained a clause placing an additional tax of 
five shillings on imported convicts. As there was no news 
from Braddock and further delay was dangerous, Sharpe 
secured a small company of volunteers and hastened to Fort 
Cumberland* While on his way thither a report of Brad- 
dock's defeat reached him, 1 occasioning great surprise and 
producing the wildest commotion among the settlers. A 
private subscription had been raised by the members of the 
Council and other gentlemen of the province ; this was all 
Sharpe could count upon, and out of it he garrisoned several 
forts or places of refuge for the people of Frederick County, 
and supported at Fort Cumberland Dag worthy's company, 
the only body of Maryland troops that had accompanied the 
Braddock expedition. Every effort was made by Sharpe to 
quiet the panic-stricken inhabitants and strengthen the fron- 
tier defense. To say that he was partially successful is a 
tribute to his executive ability, for Sharpe was left to cope 
with the situation almost alone. As it was, a large number 
of the western inhabitants left their homes and fled to Balti- 
more and other places. Fort Cumberland was merely the 
pretense of a fortification and was too far west to be of 
service in protecting the province. If the French on the 
Ohio had not changed their tactics at this juncture the 
consequences might have -been serious. The Indians made 
several though unsuccessful attempts to capture Fort Cum- 
berland. In the meantime Lord Baltimore became aroused 
for the safety of his western lands and bowed to the resolu- 
tions of the Assembly ; he yielded his claims 3 to the ordi- 
nary licenses and hawkers' and pedlers' licenses as well, as 
soon as the news of Braddock's defeat reached him, 3 and 
issued instructions to his Lieutenant-Governor to pass any 

1 July 15, 1755. See also above, p. 24. 
2 £640 per annum. Sharpe Cor., L, 368. 
3 Sept. 9, 1755. 



48 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [354 

act of the Assembly for a money loan which appropriated 
these licenses for the " common cause." The Lord Proprie- 
tary flattered himself that his concessions would settle all 
misunderstanding between the administration and the legis- 
lature ; but he was mistaken. It was easily seen that this 
concession had been forced from his Lordship reluctantly. 
Far from being a great favor, it was an acknowledgment of 
the power and authority of the Lower House of the Provin- 
cial Assembly. 

By patience and determination the House of Delegates had 
won its issue with the Proprietary, though five or six almost 
fruitless sessions had been spent in the effort. The Proprie- 
tor had lost through undue interference with the right, which 
the province had now acquired, to levy its own taxes and 
control public revenues. The long disputes over imported 
convicts, paper money, and especially ordinary licenses had 
aroused discontent with the Proprietary administration, in- 
difference for the English government that supported its 
policy, and led the representatives of the people to prejudice 
their own safety to maintain their liberty. 

After this broadside had taken effect the Lower House 
aimed another. The vantage-ground they had gained em- 
boldened them to attack the personal or private rights of the 
Lord Proprietary. This leads us to the fourth cause of 
Maryland's inactivity in the French and Indian War : that 
is, the refusal of the Proprietary to share the burdens of the 
war and waive the right to have his estates exempted from 
taxation. 

During the autumn of 1755 nothing was done to check the 
depredations and outrages of the Indians on the frontier, for 
the Assembly was not called together again until February, 
1756. Gov. Shirley, of Massachusetts, had succeeded to the 
chief command of the American forces after the death of 
Braddock. A council of war was held in New York in 
December, 1755, where the plans for 1756 were decided. 1 

^harpeCor., I., 315-320. 



355] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 49 

While the scene of action was transferred to the Canada bor- 
der, it was left to the tact of Governor Sharpe, who was ap- 
pointed commander for the Southern colonies, to organize an 
expedition against Fort Duquesne. There existed the old 
desire to recover this American fort and overawe their Indian 
enemies, at whose hands they suffered more than from 
the French, for the Indians had improved the opportunity 
for plunder offered by French successes. To cope with 
such a state of things the activity and cooperation of the 
colonies were imperative. In Maryland, as in Pennsylvania, 
the force of public opinion was also brought to bear upon the 
provincial government to induce speedy action. With the 
hope that the pressure of circumstances might have the de- 
sired effect on the Assembly, Sharpe called it together again, 
February 23, 1756. The Assembly appeared willing to 
grant supplies, provided it could have its own way in direct- 
ing the measures for raising them. After a delay of nearly 
two months, a supply of £40,000 was voted by the Lower 
House. To raise this large grant taxes were placed upon a 
variety of commodities, imports and exports ; even bachelors 
and billiard tables were not omitted ; while taxes imposed 
by previous acts, notably that of 1754, were continued by 
this act of 1756. 1 With unswerving constancy the Lower 
House included all the objectionable features of former sup- 
ply bills and a few more besides, such as the duty on im- 
ported convicts, ordinary licenses, new emissions of paper 
money and a land tax. The last was distinctly a new feature, 
for it was the first tax on land ever imposed and collected in 
Maryland; but the great demand for revenue necessitated 
recourse to such a tax. The bill met with a stormy recep- 
tion. " Too much dictation by the Lower House," objected 
the Council. It is true the delegates had prescribed rather 
minutely the purposes for which each portion of the money 
should be appropriated, and left but little to the discretion 
of the Governor except to see that they were properly carried 

1 Bacon's Laws of Maryland, 1756, ch. V. 



50 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [356 

out. The Lower House had acquired powers over money 
bills equal to those of the House of Commons, and this was 
a practical assertion of them. The duty on convicts, the 
emission of paper money and the land tax got their share of 
opprobrium. These were " some " of the reasons for the 
rejection of the bill by the Upper House. But the delegates 
were firm in resisting nearly every attempted compromise of 
their schemes and plans, and often allowed the debate to fall 
away into parliamentary quibbling, in which the real points 
at issue were lost sight of. A second and a third time the 
same bill for a supply of .£40,000, with a few slight modi- 
fications, was passed by the Lower House and as often re- 
jected by the Upper. The delegates assumed too great a 
power over the settling of the land tax, it was objected ; after 
what manner we shall see. 

One of the most important measures introduced into this 
bill was the provision that a small tax, one shilling per hun- 
dred acres, should be imposed on all freehold estates, and the 
Proprietary lands as well. 1 The Lord Proprietary was lord 
and owner of the soil, and in virtue of these rights his lands 
were beyond the control of the Assembly. Lord Baltimore 
held a large quantity of vacant land in the western part of 
the province. Frederick, who was only anxious to swell his 

1 The lands of the Lord Proprietary were of three classes, manor, 
reserved, and vacant lands. The manor lands were large tracts, held 
by the Lord Proprietor, that had been properly surveyed and a descrip- 
tion of whose bounds and general features had been entered upon the 
public records. They were leased in parcels to tenants. The reserved 
lands were tracts of territory which were ordered to be held in reserve 
for the Proprietor, on account of their fertility, mineral wealth, contiguity 
to his manors or towns. These reserved lands had not been surveyed 
nor laid out, nor designated by any particular name, as the manors were ; 
but like the manor lands they were rented in portions by his Lordship's 
agents, who were forbidden to sell or grant them to any one. All other 
lands owned by the Proprietor, notably those in the western part of the 
province and on the frontier, and which were open at the Land Office to 
purchase by any one at the "common rates," were called vacant lands. 
These afforded no immediate revenue. Sharpe Cor., I., 426. 



357] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 51 

income ; urged Sharpe repeatedly to advance the price of his 
western lands and the rents of his manors ; but the insecurity 
of the western border diminished the number of applications 
for this land; and in consequence it was difficult to raise the 
price of that for which there was little sale. The Proprietary 
gave no assistance to his province in these trying times, and 
in this instance one can hardly help excusing the Assembly 
for regarding Frederick as an obstacle that had to be con- 
quered. In the tax upon land his manor and reserved 
lands were included; and in this way Baltimore was made to 
contribute a small portion at least towards the defense of his 
own province. Had Frederick come promptly forward to 
the relief of the people with a modest contribution he might 
have created a loyal feeling among them and have saved 
himself many vexatious encroachments upon his rights. The 
first attempt to tax the Proprietary in Pennsylvania was 
responded to by the Penns with a contribution of .£5000. 
Furthermore; the safety of the province settled; the value of 
his western land would be restored; as Sharpe tried to con- 
vince him, the annual loss to his Lordship was at this time 
much greater than the tax proposed upon his estates. There- 
fore it could only be short-sighted policy to hamper the 
Governor with instructions that led Sharpe to entertain u no 
sanguine hopes of the bill." His Lordship was afraid of 
adding another precedent to those which had already marked 
the downfall of his feudal prerogatives. Sharpe again expressed 
his former conviction that it must be left to Parliament to 
step in and " save the Assembly the trouble of providing for 
its own safety." However; the more Baltimore resisted, the 
weaker his position grew : a conference of the two branches 
resulted in a satisfactory agreement upon the bill. 

In the meantime a change of sentiment had taken place 
among the councillors of the administration; it was con- 
sidered futile to oppose the Lower House further at this time 
and thereby jeopard the safety of the province ; consequently; 
Sharpe, aided by the persuasion of the Proprietary Council, 



52 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [358 

came to the conclusion that it was best to assent to the bill 
if passed again, even though it contained the objectionable 
tax upon Lord Baltimore's land. His excuses were "the 
preservation of his province," the loss in Proprietary revenue, 
and the parsimony of Frederick himself. In regard to the 
latter, Sharpe said : " If an Act of Generosity in his Ldp 
had afforded me the least Room I would not have despaired 
of making them [i. e. the Assembly] ashamed of their 
Behaviour and of rendering them odious to their own Con- 
stituents." In the conference between the two branches of 
the legislature many trifling objections were adjusted. The 
duty on imported convicts was excepted, an additional land 
tax was provided for to supply any deficiency that might 
occur in the sinking fund, and above all it was mutually 
agreed that Lord Baltimore's manors and rent-paying reserved 
lands should bear a tax equal to that imposed upon lands 
patented or granted by the Lords Proprietary to the inhab- 
itants of the province, while his other lands should be ex- 
empted. The bill for a supply of £40,000 was passed May 
14, 1756, after thirteen weeks of delay and dispute. Sharpe 
took the situation philosophically, though he expressed his 
disapproval of the Assembly's conduct. Conscious that " the 
Lower House would not let the Lives of a few inhabitants 
come in Competition with their Schemes and Views," anxious 
alike for the safety of the province and the increase of his 
lord's revenues, Sharpe took the advice of the Proprietary 
Council and assented to the land tax. He had acted con- 
trary to Baltimore's wishes. It was not without " some 
Apprehentions," said he, "that this Step . . . would be 
censured as a culpable Concession and subversive of His 
Ldp's Rights and prerogatives"; but the security of the 
province was his first duty, and Sharpe yielded. 

Frederick's indecision had decided Sharpe in the course he 
took, and upon it he felt willing to stake his reputation with 
the Lord Proprietary. 1 Although Sharpe was advised to 

1 Sharpe Cor., I., 399. 



359] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 53 

follow in the path of Governor Morris of Pennsylvania, in 
" guarding against any Invasion of Proprietary rights and 
prerogatives," he received no definite and peremptory instruc- 
tions upon the issues between Lord Baltimore and the people. 
Governor Sharpe had solicited instructions to remove the 
" uncertainty/ 7 and stood ready to execute them though he 
should be called by the people "an Odious Instrument" for 
so doing. Lord Baltimore's revenue the past year had fallen 
£1600 below what it had been the year previous, and this 
was attributed to the abandonment of the western lands and 
their depreciation in value ; while, on the contrary, the Pro- 
prietary land tax, for the five years to which it was limited, 
only amounted to £400. " Was His Ldp's Case my own," 
writes the Governor at the time, " I am sure I would never 
have hesitated a moment to contribute my Share with the 
people to defend the province and annoy the Enemy." 1 It 
is clear that a liberal stroke on the part of Lord Baltimore, 
a modest but sympathetic contribution, would likely have 
saved him considerable embarrassment. By the act of 1756 
the Assembly scored another point against Proprietary rule. 

5. — Pennsylvania's Influence upon Maryland. 

Let us turn for a moment to Pennsylvania to see the influ- 
ence exerted by her upon Maryland. The conduct of both 
provinces with regard to the land tax was very similar, for 
each had the same interests at stake and the same kind of a 
government. Sharpe watched the course of Pennsylvania's 
Assembly closely and reported every favorable move to his 
own legislative body, hoping in the event of his neighbors 
passing an "acceptable bill" that Maryland's Assembly 
would be influenced to become "Imitators of the Quakers' 
conduct." 

General Braddock's defeat was as much of a surprise to 
the Pennsylvanians as it was to Marylanders. They, too, 
had practically left the British to fight their own battles, but 

Sharpe Cor., I., 427. 



54 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [360 

the Assembly was now sufficiently aroused to pass a vote of 
£50,000. To raise this sum the General Assembly proposed 
a tax of " twelve pence per pound and twenty shillings per 
Head, Yearly for two Years, on all the Estates real and per- 
sonal, and Taxables " within the province. All the lands of 
the Proprietaries as well as those of the people were 
included. This proposition was made July 30, 1755, and 
it fell with the effect of a bombshell upon the Proprie- 
tors. It looked to them like an effort to destroy their author- 
ity. The measure aimed in particular at the vacant lands 
held by the Proprietary, and with some reason, too. Gov- 
ernor Morris, in obedience to his instructions, opposed the 
proposition with all his skill in argument. The position of 
the people was based upon equity and common benefit. It 
is but fair, said the Assembly, since we are called upon to 
defend the Proprietary estates on the frontier, that our Pro- 
prietors should bear their share of the burdens. The oppo- 
sition of the administration to this measure was based on 
prerogative, precedent and law. Says Governor Morris : 
1. "All Governors, from the nature of their office, are ex- 
empt from the payment of taxes." 2. " This exemption is 
supported by a positive law of the province ; for a law of the 
province, investing the assessors with power to assess and 
lay taxes in the several counties, contains an express proviso 
that the Proprietary estates should not be taxed." 3. "It is 
contrary to the constant practice and usage of this and all 
other Proprietary Governments to lay any tax upon the lands 
or estates of the Proprietaries exercising the government by 
themselves or their lieutenants." l The Assembly asserted 
a right to tax the Proprietors as landlords and not as gov- 
ernors, and requested Gov. Morris not to " make himself the 
hateful Instrument of reducing a free people to the abject 
state of Vassalage." " What Laws of Imposition," said he, 
"... have I attempted to force down your Throats ? " 

Pennsylvania Colonial Records, VI., 525, 526. 
Pennsylvania Colonial Records, VI., 584. 



361] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 55 

The Assembly responds : "A Law to Tax the people of Penn- 
sylvania To defend the Proprietary Estate, and to exempt 
the Proprietary -Estate from bearing any part of the Tax, is, 
may it please the Governor, a Law abhorrent to common 
Justice, common Reason and common Sense." While the 
Administration had law and precedent on its side, the prop- 
osition of the Assembly seems to have been fair and just. 
Thus did the burgesses express their feelings toward Pro- 
prietary rule, for they were determined to endanger the 
safety of the colony, if necessary, to attain their ends. Gov- 
ernor Morris came forward with a compromise and proposed 
to grant bounty lands to those who would volunteer for the 
expedition against the French. Lands west of the Alle- 
ghanies were to be given, without purchase money and free 
from the payment of quit-rents for fifteen years, and then not 
to exceed the common quit-rent x of the province. But this 
did not satisfy the Assembly, and judging from the tone of 
their messages, they deemed it almost an impertinence in the 
Governor to have suggested an alternative to their measure. 
Consequently the bill for £50,000 fell through. Shortly 
after, another bill, appropriating £60,000 for the same pur- 
pose and with substantially the same provisions, was pro- 
posed. 2 Governor Morris could not give his assent to this 
bill. He was firm with the Assembly and faithful to his 
superiors ; but he was honest enough to confess that the 
Proprietors' real reason for not yielding to the tax upon 
their lands was " to preserve the rights of their Station ; if 
they gave up these they would soon be stript of everything 
they had a right to enjoy, both power and property." 3 The 
Governor then expressed a desire that the Penns be taxed 
by Parliament, if they were to be taxed at all, " for if the 
power is ever given into the hands of the people here," he 
wrote, " they will use it without mercy." 4 

1 4s. 2d. sterling. 

2 Nov. 6, 1755. 

3 Pa. Col. Records, VI., 544. 

4 Pa. Col. Records, VI., 738-9. 



56 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [362 

But the perseverance of the Assembly bore good fruit. In 
the meanwhile the Proprietors had been informed of the de- 
feat of Braddock, the insecurity of the province and the 
doings of the Assembly. Governor Morris's conduct was 
commended and the Proprietors, in order to settle the dis- 
pute, offered a contribution of £5000 with a proviso that 
their estates should be exempted from taxation. While this 
was proffered as a free gift and not as a commutation for 
their share of the Assembly's appropriation, Morris was 
instructed that if the burgesses provided simply the difference, 
£55,000, he should not insist upon the balance. 1 This is 
significant ; the Assembly interpreted it as a concession on 
the part of the Proprietaries, and this it certainly was. The 
gift was accepted and the bill for £60,000 passed November 
26, 1755, but the Assembly provided only for the striking of 
£55,000 in bills of credit, the remainder being supplied by 
the gift of £5000 which was accepted in lieu of a tax upon 
the Proprietary estates. 2 Although the administration thought 
it had staved off the idea of taxing the lands of the Proprie- 
tary, the people had won a real victory. In the interim 
the people of Maryland were watching Peunsylvania closely, 
and so was Sharpe ; he was awaiting the turn of the tide. 
If their Assembly passed a suitable bill he intended calling 
together his own ; on the other hand, unfavorable action by 
his neighbor would make it useless, so the Governor of 
Maryland thought; for he was confident that if Pennsyl- 
vania set an ill example Maryland would be sure to follow 
it. 3 But the passage of £60,000 in the autumn of 1755 gave 
him fresh hope. Consequently, he called his Assembly 
together early in 1756 and expected a ready response. In 
this he was partially disappointed, as we know, for the Mary- 

J Pa. Col. Records, VI., 731. 

2 The bill was not satisfactory, but passed the Council because of the 
restlessness of the people for some definite action. Pa. Col. Records, VI., 
734; also VI., 737-738. 

3 Sharpe Cor., I., 269. 



363] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 57 

land Assembly adopted Pennsylvania's tactics. The land- 
tax was again the bugbear, and the Governor and his 
council were forced to reject the first proposal to grant 
£40,000. At this period Maryland and Pennsylvania had 
the same controversies, but the tax proposed in Maryland 
was quite different from the so-called " pound-tax " x of Penn- 
sylvania. For instance, the latter included all the Proprie- 
taries' personal and real estate in the province, which was 
taxed and assessed according to its value, i. e. at the rate of 
12d. per <£, by such assessors as the people should elect. 
Maryland, on the contrary, proposed a specific tax of Is. 
per hundred acres, which embraced the Proprietary manor 
and reserved lands, 2 but excluded the vacant lands. The 
Lower House even receded from this, as we have seen, and 
agreed to tax only those parts of his lordship's reserved 
lands which were actually leased out and paid a rent ; the 
remainder being classed with the vacant lands. Thus Mary- 
land's proposition was different from that of Pennsylvania 
and far more reasonable. Nevertheless it was treated with 
more indifference by Lord Baltimore than was shown by the 
Penns. 3 This may partly account for the easy victory which 
the Assembly gained over the administration in March, 1756, 
for a solution of the difficulty was forced upon Governor 
Sharpe by Frederick's inJecision. In truth, Maryland scored 
a victory before her neighbor, and her example reacted by 
way of encouragement upon Pennsylvania. In the meantime 
William Denny had succeeded Morris as Governor of Penn- 
sylvania. 4 The Assembly tried its persuasive powers upon 
him with a bill to grant £100,000 for the King's service, 
including in its provisions a tax upon the estates of the Pro- 
prietaries. This bill was rejected; but Governor Denny 

1 i. e. 12 pence per £, and 20 shillings per head. 

2 See above, p. 50, note. 

3 For as soon as the Penns received Gov. Morris's letter of July 30, 1755, 
they ordered a contribution of £5000. Pa. Col. Records, VI., 730. 

4 August, 1756. 



58 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [364 

was more plastic in the hands of the Assembly than Morris 
and in due time they were able to win him to their own 
schemes. 

Benjamin Franklin was at this time a leader in the Assem- 
bly. So powerful was his influence and so effectually did he 
champion the views of the Assembly that he was even 
accused by the administration of trying to take the govern- 
ment out of the hands of the Proprietaries. It was now 
determined to send a representative to England to present 
their grievances, and Franklin was selected 2 as the fittest 
advocate to exonerate the Assembly before Parliament and 
expose the " Iniquity of the Proprietary Instructions." He 
arrived in London July 27, 1757, and wisely resolved to see 
the Proprietaries first. Before them he laid the complaints of 
the Pennsylvanians, the most important of which, we remem- 
ber, was the question concerning the taxing of the Proprie- 
tors' estates. Franklin was referred to their solicitor, 
Ferdinand John Paris, "a proud, angry man," as Pennsyl- 
vania's representative termed him. Franklin refused to deal 
with any one but the Penns themselves. His petition was 
referred to the Attorney-General for the latter's opinion. 
What the Attorney's opinion was, if he gave any, Franklin 
never learned, but about a year later the Proprietaries " sent 
a long message to the Assembly," says Franklin, " drawn up 
and signed by Paris, reciting my paper, . . . giving a flimsy 
justification of their conduct, adding that they should be 
willing to accommodate matters if the Assembly would send 
out some person of candour to treat with them for that pur- 
pose, intimating thereby that I was not such." 3 

In the meantime Governor Denny had yielded to the pres- 
sure upon him ; he had been persuaded by the Assembly to 
pass an act, 4 wherein the estates of the Proprietaries were 

1 Pa. Col. Records, VI., 739. 

2 Feb., 1757. 

3 Franklin's Works, I., p. 298 (J. Bigelow edition). 

4 For £100,000, passed in April, 1759. The estates of the Proprietors 
were assessed and taxed by assessors of the people's choosing. By this 



365] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 59 

taxed in common with those of the people. This was the 
grand rallying point of all their disputes, and now that the 
Assembly had carried the provincial administration with 
them, instead of responding to the message of the Proprie- 
taries, they sent over the act itself for confirmation. The 
Proprietaries determined to prevent it from receiving the 
royal assent and employed able counsel to argue their case. 
Franklin now appeared before the Board of Trade 1 to defend 
the Pennsylvania Assembly, but they reported unfavorably 
upon the act. However, the act was afterwards reviewed 
before the King in Council, and through the aid of Lord 
Mansfield the report of the Lords of Trade was reversed. 2 
Indeed, the Assembly had anticipated the order of Council 
by the levy of one year's tax under the act in question. 
Pennsylvania's victory over her Proprietaries was decisive. 

Act the Proprietaries were subjected to the same taxes as were laid upon 
other lands by the several Acts that were passed after 1754. The Act was 
to continue for twelve years, and it was estimated that within that time 
the Lords Proprietary would be made to pay about £72,000. 

1 May, 1760. 

2 Franklin's Works, I., p. 300 (Bigelow's ed.). Bancroft's United 
States, II., 529-530. 



CONCLUSION. 
DAWN OP INDEPENDENCE. 

From Governor Sharpe's correspondence we learn the real 
motives of the Assembly's actions. His letters to his own 
brothers, in particular, contain calm and disinterested surveys 
of Maryland politics at that time. It is clear that Maryland 
failed in the duty she owed her sister provinces and the 
mother-country, and were there no circumstances to explain 
this fact her behavior would be inexcusable. 

Indifference and " unseasonable parsimony " are the first 
causes that occur to us. It was with the greatest difficulty, 
we remember, that the province was brought to a sense of 
her danger when the French were occupying the Ohio Valley, 
and not until Washington's surrender were they induced to 
vote a supply. They " looked on the incursions of their 
ambitious and insulting enemies," 1 says Sharpe, " with the 
greatest indifference." The Assembly was excessively frugal 
and they objected to being burdened with taxes. Only small 
sums were voted, and when to save appearances apparently 
liberal bills passed the Lower House they were clogged with 
provisions that prevented them from becoming laws. This 
is also seen in the unwillingness of Maryland to take any 
aggressive steps or to carry war outside of her own territory. 
All that was done was confined to the defense of the frontier 
and the fortification of the province against invasion. The 
Assembly would pass no effective militia law nor provide 
equipment for the provincial troops, and it not only refused 
to allow its troops to go beyond its own borders except in the 
pay of Great Britain, but also neglected to support the garri- 
sons within the province. When in 1758 the French with- 

1 Sharpe Cor., I., 109. 



367] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 61 

drew from the Ohio Valley and the Southern colonies were 
out of danger, Sharpe wrote to Baltimore : " As the Inhabi- 
tants of the Province . . . are not ambitious of acquiring a 
Reputation for Zeal and exemplary Loyalty, they seem to be 
very indifferent about the Event of the Campaign." 1 We 
may even go a step further and say that the Assembly or 
many of the leading men acted disloyally, for the Governor, 
in his efforts to raise money from the people by private sub- 
scriptions, was opposed by the Burgesses, who endeavored to 
persuade the people that if money were raised by such 
methods they must expect to do without Assemblies and 
abide by ordinances rather than " Laws made . . . with 
their own consent." " With the empty sounds of Liberty 
and Priveledge," says Sharpe, " . . . these Tribunes impose 
on the weak minds of the people . . . while . . . they effect- 
ually contribute to their Destruction." The refusal of the 
Assembly to support Dagworthy and his company at Fort 
Cumberland and the reduction of the already small provin- 
cial force to 300 in 1757 seem inexcusable. One member 
of the Assembly, it is said, went among the soldiers and told 
them that since no money had been raised to pay them they 
were not obliged to continue in the service, and that if they 
did the Assembly would never agree to pay them. More- 
over, their treatment of royal requisitions and their conduct 
toward the Roman Catholics showed clearly their temper 
towards all dictation. The system known as " Crown Requi- 
sitions " was imposed by the English government upon the 
colonies at an early date. It was the first scheme introduced 
by the Crown to raise money in the provinces for the con- 
duct of border warfare. A royal requisition to each Gov- 
ernor prescribed the quota of men and supplies expected. 
The system was obnoxious to the colonies, and especially to 
Maryland, for the charter of the latter contained ample pro- 
visions against royal interference with the autonomy of the 
province. Requisitions were sent to Maryland as early as 

Sharpe Cor., II., 397. 



62 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [368 

1694, but, despite their imperative character, they were com- 
monly received with indifference and met a dogged resistance. 
Maryland held that " no taxes or imposition of any kind could 
be laid without the assent of the General Assembly," and the 
Assembly endeavored to prevent any infraction of this char- 
tered privilege. 1 Even during the suspension of Proprietary 
government (1689-1715) the Royal government only obtained 
its levies with the consent of the Assembly. Maryland pur- 
sued the same policy during the French and Indian War, as 
we have seen. The plan for a general union of his Majesty's 
northern colonies for defense and the "common fund" 
had both failed. Brad dock's requisitions were treated with 
contempt, and he not only received but little assistance from 
Maryland and Pennsylvania, but was hampered by them 
besides. Maryland failed to support properly the small com- 
pany furnished for his expedition, 2 and repeated mutter ings 
of discontent were heard from the people and in the Assem- 
bly against Braddock's troops for their unscrupulous conduct 
in appropriating at will large numbers of servants, carriages 
and horses. Some of the governors applied to England for 
an act of Parliament to compel the colonies to contribute 
their quotas, and Calvert, Baltimore's secretary, wrote Sharpe 
the warning : " it wo d be Best the Americans did not Subject 
themselves to Tax from hence " 3 — a threat rash and unheeded, 
as subsequent history proves. Governor Sharpe again brought 
forward his pet idea of a general poll-tax enforced by Par- 
liament, for he was convinced that nothing but a compulsory 
act by Parliament could " effectually preserve the Colonies 
from ruin." 4 While the disputes with the Proprietary 
explain largely the apathy in Maryland toward the mother- 
country, it does not account for it fully. The province was 

1 As early as 1698 Maryland maintained that no law of England should 
be binding upon them without their consent. 

2 Sharpe advanced £100 from his own pocket for the purpose. Sharpe 
Cor., I., 245. 

3 Sharpe Cor., I., 135. 
4 Sharpe Cor., II., 85-86. 



369] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 63 

always jealous of her rights, and the charter was the standard 
by which she measured her independence of England. Mary- 
land enjoyed most of the privileges of a sovereign state and 
acted accordingly. It is evident from the legislation of the 
House of Commons that Parliament was much incensed at 
the behavior of Maryland. In 1756 (February 3) a grant 
of £95,000 was made to the " Plantations in North America; " 
but in the distribution, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania 
and the two Carolinas were excluded the benefit. Calvert 
gave the reason to Sharpe in these words : " The Construc- 
tion had and held of them Province is, they have fail'd of 
that just regard and not complying to his Majesty's Secy of 
State, therefore the Legislature here think them at present 
not of notice to His Majesty." * Furthermore, Lord Lou- 
don, when he became commander-in-chief of the American 
forces (1756-1758), was not able to command the respect and 
obedience of Maryland's Assembly. They did not listen to 
his requisitions and scorned all dictation. Contrary to his 
orders, they resolved to withdraw the garrison from Fort 
Cumberland, on the frontier of the province, and reduce 
their force to 300 men ; at the same time they refused to 
allow any Maryland troops to leave the province under his 
command except they be in his pay. By such legislation 
the frontier was left ill-protected, and the province would 
have been in great danger had the French at Fort Duquesne 
manifested any activity. 

With the accession of the Pitt ministry in England in 
1758, and the appointment of Amherst to the command 
of the British forces in America, the tide turned. General 
Forbes was placed in charge of an expedition against 
Fort Duquesne, with instructions to secure the active cooper- 
ation of the Southern colonies. But the attitude of the 
Assembly reflects great discredit upon the province. They 
had refused to maintain the garrison at Fort Cumberland, 
and the troops, having been without pay for eight months, 

1 Quoted as it stands in the Records. Sharpe Cor., I., 370. 



64 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [370 

or not having " fingered any money," as Sharpe put it, 
were on the point of disbanding. In order to keep this 
force together until the close of the campaign General 
Forbes was obliged to take the 300 men stationed at Fort 
Cumberland and Fort Frederick into his own pay and 
advance £1500 for their support upon the credit of the 
province. In this way they were kept from starving and 
remained a part of Forbes's army until Fort Duquesne was 
reclaimed. 1 

After much persuasion the Assembly promised to reim- 
burse Forbes for his advances, but this resolution does not 
seem to have been fulfilled. Upon the occupation of Fort 
Duquesne warfare in the south was practically over, and 
General Amherst, with his aides, Generals Johnson and 
Wolfe, conducted the war to a successful close in the north ; 
Canada was captured by the British, but without any assist- 
ance from Maryland. The entreaties of Pitt and Amherst 
were of no avail, and Sharpe had to resign himself to the 
consciousness that the Assembly must be left to its own 
course. 

The treatment of Eoman Catholics is an unsavory sub- 
ject in Maryland history. During the French and Indian 
War the persecution of this portion of the population con- 
tinued. Every possible pretext for bringing in bills to re- 
strict their liberties and " prevent the growth of Popery " 
seems to have been seized upon. Fortunately, however, 
many of these bills never got beyond the journals of the 
Lower House. If perchance a person of this faith had 
secured an appointment to a responsible position a protest 
would be made "against favors shown to Catholics." 
• Charges were made that they were in collusion with the 
French, but most of these charges, happily, proved to be 
malicious lies concocted for the purpose of creating a pre- 
judice against the Roman Catholics. So strong was the sen- 
timent against them that members of the Assembly failed of 

^ov. 25, 1758. 



371] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 65 

reelection on account of their opposition to bills affecting the 
Catholics. In response to the petitions of the Lower House 
Sharpe pronounced their behavior " unexceptionable " and said 
it would be hard to take any measures that might be called 
persecution. 1 

In 1756, when the vote of £40,000 was passed, a double 
tax was placed upon the lands of all Roman Catholics ; to 
this there was little objection on the part of the administra- 
tion, for the reason that Catholics were excused from attend- 
ing "Musters as Militia." 2 Their petitions to Sharpe to 
veto the bill and their threats to appeal to the King in 
Council had no effect. Governor Sharpe, though he con- 
fessed that he did not think it so great an injustice, would 
have prevented the double taxation if he had been able. In 
the same year in which the double taxation was imposed it 
was even proposed in the Assembly to disarm all Roman 
Catholics in the province, and the opposition to this obnox- 
ious measure only prevailed by a slender majority of one. 3 
Sharpens conduct is to be highly commended, for though a 
Protestant he never allowed himself to be carried away by 
the intolerant spirit that prevailed. The Governor defended 
himself against all charges of favoritism in a frank and com- 
mendable manner, conscientiously opposed all attempts of 
the Assembly to persecute the Catholics, and refused to 
sanction any acts affecting them which were unreasonably 
severe. Yet, withal, we find no disloyalty among the Cath- 
olics. Rather is their treatment a reflection of the character 
of the Assembly itself and an indication of the general 
apathy that prevailed in the province in regard to the issue 
of the struggle for Canada. Instead of spending all its 
energy to restore the security and dignity of Maryland, the 
Assembly wasted much of its valuable time in false charges 

1 Sharpe Cor., I., 408. Sharpe, though a Protestant himself, said that 
they were really better than the Protestants. 

2 Sharpe Cor., I., 419-20. 

3 The yote stood 19 to 18. Assem. Proc, Sept., 1756. 



66 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [372 

and in the passing of laws against the " Papists," attempting 
to make them, as it were, a subterfuge to shield its own in- 
activity. We are not surprised, therefore, that Sharpe, as 
did others, harped incessantly upon the idea of an act of 
Parliament to compel the colonies, in particular Maryland 
and Pennsylvania, to help themselves. General Forbes's 
admonition, " Great Britain will not be blind to their Be- 
haviour . . . on this occasion," was verified in 1765. When, 
in 1766, Maryland was called to account by the House 
of Commons, the task of defending her conduct fell upon 
Franklin, who explained it away as best he could. 1 

Opposition to Proprietary rule existed from the very begin- 
ning of the province. The people at the start took the law- 
making power out of the hands of the Proprietor, to whom it 
was given by the charter; the wisdom of the first Proprietor 
made him yield to a compromise that was unavoidable. This 
attitude of the Assembly developed by 1739 "a Political 
Faction," which opposed the Administration in everything. 
The Assembly of that year may be truly called an Assembly 
of grievances. 

From henceforward, "no Supplies without redress of 
grievances " became the rallying principle, and the French 
and Indian War gave them a glorious opportunity to enforce 
this principle and extend their encroachments upon his 
lordship's prerogatives. The Assembly, however, carried 
their disputes to an extreme not warranted by the griev- 
ances themselves, as we have seen in the quarrels over the 
port duty and the tobacco tax. Many of the burgesses seem 
to have lost their heads and to have exhausted their powers 
of logic in their attempts to right fancied wrongs. Again, in 
the paper money controversy they took a weak stand, and if 
the Assembly had been given a free rein it would have 
greatly depreciated the currency of the province. Subservi- 

1 Franklin took the view that Maryland's backwardness was the fault 
of her government and not of her people. Franklin's Works, III., pp. 
425-6 (Bigelow's ed.). 



373] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 67 

ence to the example set by Pennsylvania, permitting the 
people of the frontier to suffer from constant depredations, 
allowing the troops to starve without more effective measures 
of assistance, were evidences of an attitude on the part of 
the Assembly far from commendable, and Maryland was 
justly called to account for perverting such an opportunity to 
the attainment of selfish and ambitious ends. 

Something can be said, however, in favor of the indepen- 
dent attitude of Maryland's Assembly. Frederick Calvert's 
imbecile conduct proved him a man unfit to rule a great 
province. The Assembly had acquired large privileges which 
by the charter belonged originally to the Proprietor. Pos- 
sibly these were gained more by force than by right, but it 
meant to retain them forever. Out of feudal elements had 
developed a government by the people too dear to English 
ideas of independence to be relinquished. 

Consequently when Frederick began to interfere with these 
acquired rights of the province he was unconscious, or if 
conscious, indifferent to the mistake he was making. He 
objected to the appropriation of ordinary licenses for the 
expenses of the war, although his predecessor Charles had 
readily assented to such appropriations for public purposes on 
less imperative occasions. He instructed his Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor to object to the duty on convicts for fear of a censure 
from the Crown, although previous to this the right to pro- 
hibit their importation altogether had been recognized and 
assented to. The attempt to interfere with the Assembly's 
taxing powers, which was dictated by a selfish regard for 
his own interests, made Lord Baltimore very unpopular. 
Furthermore, his unwillingness to give the grievances of his 
people a fair hearing, his efforts to smother petitions to the 
Crown, aggravated the feelings of the provincials and made 
them all the more determined to resist Proprietary rule. His 
liberality was again put to the test in 1756 when the 
Assembly proposed to tax his estates ; the result we have 
already seen. Maryland was less radical than Pennsyl- 



68 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [374 

vania, and had Frederick even manifested the liberality of 
the Penns he might have saved his estates. He was a heavy 
loser by the war, as Sharpe constantly pointed out to him, 
and economy as well as justice seemed to dictate a generous 
policy. But here the Proprietary was at fault again, and the 
Assembly persisted in its schemes. 

The design of the Assembly was to limit the authority of 
the Proprietary in the province and transfer it to the repre- 
sentatives of the people. And Governor Sharpe says of the 
legislation of the Lower House that it "manifestly tended to 
deprive the Government of all Power and to throw it entirely 
into the hands of the People as it is in Pensil vania." 1 This 
spirit of aggression was not new ; it had only been intensified 
by the indifferent conduct of their Proprietor. Why did 
Frederick not visit his province nor concern himself about 
its difficulties, nor inquire as to whether or not the province 
was able or ought to bear alone the burden of protecting 
his property ? It was because he cared so little for it. Is 
it any wonder, therefore, that " the Lower House," as Sharpe 
says, " seemed to be determined to grant no Supplies unless 
they could at the same* time carry certain points which 
tended to subvert in a great measure the Constitution." 2 
No doubt Governor Sharpens pet term for the Lower House 
— "a Levelling House of Burgesses "—is an apt one, for 
they were scheming to belittle and perhaps overthrow their 
Proprietary government. Frederick's policy was calculated 
to help rather than hinder this design; it created discord 
which might have been avoided, and invited the interference 
of the English Crown in the affairs of the province. 

It seems to have been the intention of some of the leading 
men of the Assembly to play the colony into the hands of 
the Crown. The object for doing such a thing may be 
surmised ; under Royal government the Assembly anticipated 
a monopoly of the provincial administration. The events of 
the next few years show their mistake. 

Sharpe Cor., II., 177. 
2 SharpeCor., I., 391. 



375] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 69 

Of the indications that point to such a design several are 
important. Doubtless the remembrance of the Boyal govern- 
ment in 1715 was still fresh in mind, and the Assembly 
thought the Crown a safe retreat from the rule of the Pro- 
prietary. We have already seen what an effort the Lower 
House made in 1739 to petition the king to redress their 
grievances. Again, in 1756, the Assembly attempted to have 
their grievances brought before the King in Council, and 
desired an agent in London to represent them. Lord Bal- 
timore did his utmost to repress anything of this sort, for 
fear that it " would plunge him into a Sea of Trouble." 1 This 
opposition increased their hostility towards Proprietary gov- 
ernment. 

It was Sharpens belief that it was the object of the leading 
men of the Assembly " to throw things into confusion " and 
thus exempt themselves and their constituents from all 
taxes. Beyond a doubt there was a strong desire on the 
part of many to bring about some interference on the part 
of the Crown which would be disagreeable to the Proprie- 
tary. Many supply bills were framed by the Lower House 
"to save appearances " and throw the odium of rejecting 
them upon the administration, thereby making it appear, to 
use the Governor's words, "that it is entirely owing to the 
Government of Maryland and Pennsylvania being in the 
hands of Proprietors that money for His Majesty's Service 
is not so readily granted in these Provinces as in other Col- 
onies." 2 Notwithstanding Sharpens prediction of the ap- 
proaching fulfillment of the proverb " which tells us that 
after a Storm cometh a Calm," the Lord Proprietary was 
dubious of the attitude of the Assembly toward him. This 
is clearly evinced by the base scheme which Calvert now 
proposed to Sharpe. 

It was a design for bribing the Assembly, his plan being 
to repress a "Turbulent and Malevolent Spirit in the Lower 

1 Sharpe Cor., I., 401. 

2 Sharpe Cor., II., 179. 



70 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [376 

House of the Assembly." After advising Sharpe to be 
careful of his appointments to the Council, the "chief 
strength and support of his Lordship's rights," he explains 
that nineteen out of twenty of the Representatives of the 
people consult their own interests ; " therefore by throwing 
out a Sop in a proper manner to these noisy animals it will 
render them not only silent, but tame enough to bear strok- 
ing and tractable enough to follow any directions that may 
be thought fit to be given to them." 

Calvert's scheme was not to bribe the leaders but to buy 
off their followers. It is briefly as follows : Of the fifty- 
eight members of the House he would find " baits " for 
thirty. These " baits " were to be offices in the gift of the 
Administration, as the fourteen sheriffs' places, and others. 
At the beginning of each Assembly, which continued for 
three years, a majority of the members of the House were 
to be quietly promised an office on the expiration of their 
terms, provided they were favorably disposed toward the 
Proprietary and voted as the Administration dictated. By 
such a plan the Proprietary government hoped to silence 
" the pretended patriotic Spirit and clamour of the Lower 
House, and secure the harmonious working of the various 
branches of the Provincial Government like unto the wheels 
of a clock." Numerous details are prescribed in Calvert's 
letter 1 for the perfecting of his scheme. The essence of it 
only is sufficient for our purpose, that is, to reflect the char- 
acter of the Proprietary at this time. Governor Sharpe's 
reply to this proposition illustrates well the integrity and 
firmness of a man who has been much misrepresented. 
While admitting it to be good policy to reward those who 
manifested a good disposition toward the government, he 
proves the utter impracticability of the scheme proposed. 
" Scarcely a member in the House," says the Governor, 

1 A secret letter from Calvert to Sharpe. Sharpe Cor., II., 375-380 
(from the Calvert Papers). 



377] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 71 

" would thank me for bestowing such Offices on themselves or 
their Friends even without its being made a Condition that 
they should . . . give only one Vote contrary to their In- 
clinations." The attempt to execute such a design would 
have rendered the Proprietary government more odious 
to the people than ever, and the enemies of the govern- 
ment would have prevented it by legislation, though it is 
exceedingly doubtful if any of the members could have 
been ensnared into sacrificing their popularity and repu- 
tations for any such consideration. Never, probably, in 
the history of the province was a more foolish suggestion 
made to its Governor. Sharpe makes this very plain to 
Frederick's secretary, and takes the opportunity of observ- 
ing again that too much dictation on the part of the Pro- 
prietary and his friends in the matter of appointments 
had already greatly handicapped his administration. 1 The 
moral rebuke which Sharpe administers to Calvert is well 
worth quoting : " The only way . . . for His Ldp to 
obtain a solid and lasting Influence ... is to appear 
steady and resolute, to reward as far . . . as it is in his 
Power those who behave themselves well, but never bribe 
any of those who endeavour to carry their Points by 
Violence to desist or forbear ; Let His Ldp and those in 
Authority under him pursue such Measures as they will 
always be able to justify and in the End I will engage that 
a vast Majority of the Upper Class of People will become 
Friends to His Ldp and well wishers to his Govern't." 2 
These indications point to the fact that the province was 
seeking, or meditating at any rate, relief from Proprietary 
rule. Had not the cessation of hostilities soon restored the 
equilibrium of the government, it is difficult to surmise what 
might have happened. 

If we look away to Pennsylvania at this time we find a 
very similar state of affairs. In responding to appeals for 

1 Sharpe Cor., II., 426-431. 

2 Sharpe Cor., II. ,430. 



72 Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. [378 

supplies the Assembly continued to tax the estates of the 
Proprietaries. This called forth renewed opposition from the 
latter, and the people became so highly incensed that steps 
were taken to do away with the Proprietary government. 
It was determined to petition the Crown to purchase the 
province from the Proprietors and make it a Crown colony. 
Franklin was again appointed the provincial agent to convey 
the petition and urge the measure before the Ministry in 
London. With that object in view he sailed for England, 
November, 1764. The rupture with Great Britain, however, 
culminating the next year in the Stamp Act, soon subordi- 
nated all other questions, and Franklin exercised an influence 
little anticipated, becoming not merely the agent of his own 
province, Pennsylvania, but really the representative and 
defender of all the colonies. 

Though Maryland did not go so far as Pennsylvania, and 
indeed had little occasion to, yet the applause given to the 
acts of her sister province indicates that very little interfer- 
ence would have been sufficient to drive her to a similar 
step. 

Down to this time there had been no desire on the part of 
the colonies for union or independence of England, and there 
was no concerted action before 1765 for such a purpose. The 
colonies were at variance in their government, and the long 
distances between centers of population had prevented much 
intercommunication. All unity of action was merely sympa- 
thetic cooperation for defense. Indeed, the colonies had no 
grievances against the English Crown except the Navigation 
Acts. Maryland, in fact, did not come into contact with the 
Crown, for the latter had no taxing power over the province. 
The provincials were so pleased with the overlordship of the 
Crown that they made the mistake of supposing that Mary- 
land would be better off as a Royal colony than as a Pro- 
prietary colony. The Assembly's reception of the report of 
Maryland's two commissioners to the Albany Convention 
was significant : " We do not conceive those Gentlemen were 



379] Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. 73 

intended or impowered to agree upon any Plan of a proposed 
Union of the several Colonies ... of which one General 
Government may be formed in America ". . . . 

After the close of the French and Indian War Great 
Britain's oppression changed entirely the phase of colonial 
affairs. The Stamp Act was the first direct menace of the 
liberties of the colonies. Aside from mere economical con- 
siderations, Great Britain doubtless had strong motives for 
the passage of such an act, — a desire to revenge the tardiness 
of the colonies in the late war and to remind them of her 
supremacy over them ; but it was soon seen that the minis- 
ters who had favored such measures had made a mistake and 
an undue assertion of authority. Union was now felt to be 
a necessity for the preservation of their liberties. All other 
disputes and grievances were laid aside for the time; the 
provincials united for resistance, and Franklin was put on 
the defensive in London. The French and Indian War had 
been a general preparation, and the provinces, despite the 
backwardness of many of them, had at least learned the lesson 
that cooperation was necessary in all international struggles, 
and the only effective method of opposing dangers which 
threatened all alike. 

Maryland had learned the lesson too, and manifested her 
willingness to unite with her sister colonies at this momen- 
tous period. The province had developed a spirit of aggres- 
sion and resistance to Proprietary rule. We have seen how 
jealously the Assembly guarded the revenues of the province, 
and how they opposed all attempts of the Proprietary to 
infringe their taxing powers when once acquired. Similar 
attempts by Parliament to interfere with the " franchises " 
and "liberties" of the colonies finally led to their inde- 
pendence. 



THE JOHNS HOPKINS PBESS, 

BALTIMORE. 



I. American Journal of Mathematics. S. Newcomb, Editor, and T. 

Craig, Associate Editor. Quarterly. 4to. Volume XIV in progress. $5 
per annum. 

II. American Chemical Journal. I. Remsen, Editor. 8 nos. yearly. 8vo. 
Volume XIV in progress. $4 per volume. 

III. American Journal of Philology. B. L. Gildersleeve, Editor. 
Quarterly. 8vo. Volume XIII in progress. $3 per volume. 

IV. Studies from the Biological Laboratory. H. N. Martin, Editor, and 
W. K. Brooks, Associate Editor. 8vo. Volume V in progress. $5 per 
volume. 

V. Studies in Historical and Political Science. H. B. Adams, Editor. 
Monthly. 8vo. Vol. X in progress. $3 per volume. 

VI. Johns Hopkins University Circulars. 4to. Volume XI in progress. 
$1 per year. 

VII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin. 4to. Monthly. Volume III in 
progress. $1 per year. 

VIII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports. 4to. Volume III in progress. $5 
per volume. 

IX. Contributions to Assyriology, etc. Vol. I ready. $8. 

X. Annual Report of the Johns Hopkins University. Presented by the 
President to the Board of Trustees. 

XI. Annual Register of the Johns Hopkins University. Giving the list of 
officers and students, and stating the regulations, etc. Published at the 
close of the academic year. 



Rowland's Photograph op the Normal Solar Spectrum. New edition now 

ready. Set of ten plates, mounted. $20. 
The Oyster. By William K. Brooks. 240 pp. 12mo. ; 14 plates. $1.00. 
The Teaching of the Apostles (complete facsimile edition). J. Rendel 

Harris, Editor. 110 pp. and 10 plates. 4to. $5.00, cloth. 
Observations on the Embryology op Insects and Arachnids. By Adam T. 

Bruce. 46 pp. and 7 plates. 4to. $3.00, cloth. 
Selected Morphological Monographs. W. K. Brooks, Editor. Vol. I. 

370 pp. and 51 plates. 4to. $7.50, cloth. 
Reproduction in Phototype op a Syriac MS. with the Antilegomena 

Epistles. I. H. Hall, Editor. $3.00, paper ; $4.00, cloth. 
Studies in Logic. By members of the Johns Hopkins University. C. S. 

Peirce, Editor. 123 pp. 12mo. $2.00, cloth. 
New Testament Autographs. By J. Rendel Harris. 54 pp. 8vo ; 4 plates. 

50 cents. 
The Constitution of Japan, with Speeches, etc., illustrating its significance. 

48 pp. 16mo. 50 cents. 
Essays and Studies. By Basil L. Gildersleeve. 520 pp. small 4to. $3.50, 

cloth. 



A full list of publications will be sent on application. 
Communications in respect to exchanges and remittances may be sent 
to The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 



^E yjRIEDENWALD (j^O. 




©^INJUING, 



IlITCHOGI^APHING, 



&500D Gngi^aying, 



Boo^ Binding. 



alfimcre, ^§)utavr and (German (§)U. 



JBalti^oi^e, JVSj®. 



tfhe Leading jiouse of the £rt Preservative in Baltimore. 



Printers of The American Journal of Philology, American 

Chemical Journal, American Journal of Mathematics, 

Studies from the Biological Laboratory, Studies 

in Historical and Political Science, issued 

by the Johns Hopkins University. 



ESTIMATES CHEERFULLY SUBMITTED. 



PERIODICALS PUBLISHED BY 

FELIX ALGAN 

108 BOULEVARD SAIWT-GERMAIN, 

PARIS. 



Revue Historique. 

Edited by M. G. MONOD, Lecturer at the Ecole Normale Supcrieure, Adjunct Director 
of the Ecole des Hautes Etudes. 

17th Year, 1892. 

The "Revue Historique" appears bi-monthly, making at the end of the year three 
volumes of 500 pages each. 

Each number contains: I. Several leading articles, including, if possible, a complete 
thesis. II. Miscellanies, composed of unpublished documents, short notices on curious 
historical points. III. Historical reports, furnishing information, as complete as possible, 
touching the progress of historical studies. IV. An analysis of periodicals of France and 
foreign countries, from the standpoint of historical studies. V. Critical reports of new 
historical works. 

By original memoirs in each number, signed with the names of authorities in the 
science, and by reports, accounts, chronicles and analysis of periodicals, this Review 
furnishes information regarding the historical movement as complete as is to be found in 
any similar review. 

Earlier series are sold separately for 30 frs., single number for 6 frs., numbers of the 
first year are sold for 9 frs. 

Price of subscription, in Postal Union, 33 frs. 



Annales de I'Ecole Libre des Sciences Politiques. 

Published tri-monthly by the cooperation of Professors and Former Pupils of the College. 
7th Year, 1893. 

Committee of publication: MM. Botjtmy, Director of the College; Leon Say, Member of 
the AcadSmie Fran§aise, formerly Minister of Finance ; A. de Foville, Professor at the 
Conservatory of Arts and Trades, Chief of the Bureau of Statistics in the Ministry of 
Finance (Treasury Department); R. Stourm, formerly Inspector of the Finances and 
Administrator of Indirect Taxes; AUG. Arnaune; A. Ribot, Deputy; Gabriel ALIX; L. 
Renault, Professor at the Law College of Paris ; Andre Lebon, Chief of the Cabinet of 
the President of the Senate ; Albert Sorel ; Pigeonneau, Substitute Professor at the 
College de Paris ; A. Vandal, Auditor of the First Class. 

The subjects treated include the whole field covered by the programme of instruction : 
Political Economy, Finance, Statistics, Constitutional History, Public and Private Inter- 
national Law, Law of Administration, Comparative Civil and Commercial Legislation, 
Legislative and Parliamentary History, Diplomatic History, Economic Geography, Ethno- 
graphy. The Annals besides contain Bibliographical Notices and Foreign Correspondence. 

Subscription in Postal Union, 19 frs. 



Revue Philosophique de la France et de E'Etranger. 

Edited by Th. Ribot, Professor at the College of France. 
17tli Year, 1892. 

The " Revue Philosophique " appears monthly, and makes at the end of each year two 
volumes of about 680 pages each. 

Each number of the "Revue" contains: 1. Essays. 2. Accounts of new philosophical 
publications, French and foreign. 3. Complete accounts of periodicals of foreign coun- 
tries as far as they concern philosophy. 4. Notes, documents, observations. The earlier 
series are sold separately at 30 frs., and at 3 frs. by number. In Postal Union, 33 frs. Sub- 
scriptions to be paid in advance. 



Payment may be for the periodicals through postal orders. The publisher will allow 
all expenses for money orders to be charged to him. 



The American Journal of Archeology 



AND OF THE 



HISTORY OF THE FINE AETS. 



The Journal is the organ of the Archaeological Institute of America and of the 
American School of Classical Studies at Athens, and it will aim to further the 
interests for which the Institute and the School were founded. It treats of all 
branches of Archaeology and Art History: Oriental, Classical, Early Christian, 
Mediaeval and American. It is intended to supply a record of the important work 
done in the field of Archaeology, under the following categories : I. Original Articles ; 
II. Correspondence from European Archaeologists ; III. Reviews of Books ; IV. 
Archaeological News, presenting a careful and ample record of discoveries and in- 
vestigations in all parts of the world ; V. Summaries of the contents of the principal 
archaeological periodicals. 

The Journal is published quarterly, and forms a yearly volume of about 500 pages 
royal 8vo, with colored, heliotype and other plates, and numerous figures, at the sub- 
scription price of $5.00. Six volumes have been published. 

It has been the aim of the editors that the Journal, beside giving a survey of the 
whole field of Archaeology, should be international in character, by affording to the 
leading archaeologists of all countries a common medium for the publication of the 
results of their labors. This object has been in great part attained, as is shown by 
the list of eminent foreign and American contributors to the three volumes already 
issued, and by the character of articles and correspondence published. Not only 
have important contributions to the advance of the science been made in the original 
articles, but the present condition of research has been brought before our readers 
in the departments of Correspondence, and Reviews of the more important recent 
books. Two departments in which the Journal stands quite alone are (1) the Record 
of Discoveries, and (2) the Summaries of Periodicals. In the former a detailed account 
is given of all discoveries and excavations in every portion of the civilized world, 
from India to America, especial attention being given to Greece and Italy. In order 
to insure thoroughness in this work, more than sixty periodical publications are con- 
sulted, and material is secured from special correspondents. 

In order that readers should know everything of importance that appears in 
periodical literature, a considerable space has been given to careful summaries of 
the papers contained in the principal periodicals that treat of Archaeology and the 
Fine Arts. By these various methods, all important work done is concentrated and 
made accessible in a convenient but scholarly form, equally suited to the specialist 
and to the general reader. 

All literary communications should be addressed to the managing editor, 

A. L. FROTHINGHAM, JR., 

PRINCETON, N. J. 

All business communications to the publishers, 

GINN & COMPANY, 

BOSTON, MASS. 



Modern Language Notes 



A MONTHLY PUBLICATION 

With intermission from July to October inclusive. 
DEVOTED TO THE INTERESTS 

OF THE 

ACADEMIC STUDY OF ENGLISH, GERMAN 

AND THE 

ROMANCE LANGUAGES. 



A. Marshall Elliott, Managing Editor. 
James W. Bright, H. C. G. von Jagemann, Henry Alfred Todd, 

Associate Editors. 



This is a successful and widely-known periodical, managed by a corps of professors and 
instructors in the Johns Hopkins University, with the co-operation of many of the leading 
college professors, in the department of modern languages, throughout the country. 
While undertaking to maintain a high critical and scientific standard, the new journal 
will endeavor to engage the interest and meet the wants of the entire class of serious 
and progressive modern-language teachers, of whatever grade. Since its establishment 
in January, 1886, the journal has been repeatedly enlarged, and has met with constantly 
increasing encouragement and success. The wide range of its articles, original, critical, 
literary and pedagogical, by a number of the foremost American (and European) scholars, 
has well represented and recorded the recent progress of modern language studies, both 
at home and abroad. 

The list of contributors to Modern Language Notes, in addition to the Editors, 
includes the following names : 

Anderson, Melville B., State University of Iowa; Bancroft, T. Whiting, Brown 
University, R. I. ; Baskervill, W. M., Vanderbilt University, Tenn. ; Bocher, FERDINAND, 
Harvard University, Mass.; Bradley, C. B., University of California, Cal. ; Brandt, H. C. 
G., Hamilton College, N. Y. ; Browne, WM. HAND, Johns Hopkins University, Md. ; BuRN- 
HAM, Wm. H., Johns Hopkins University, Md. ; CARPENTER, WM. H., Columbia College, 
N. Y. ; CleDAT, L., Faculte des Lettres, Lyons, France ; Cohn, Adolphe, Harvard Univer- 
sity, Mass.; Cook, A. S., Yale University; COSUN, P. J., University of Leyden, Holland; 
Crane, T. F., Cornell University, N. Y. ; Davidson, Thomas, Orange, N. J. ; Egge, Albert 
E., St. Olaf's College, Minn.; Fay, E. A., National Deaf-Mute College, Washington, D. C; 
Fortier, Alcee, Tulane University, La.; Garner, Samuel, U. S. Naval Academy; 
Gerber, A., Earlham College, Ind. ; Grandgent, Charles, Harvard University, Mass. ; 
Gummere, F. B., The Swain Free School, Mass.; Hart, J. M., University of Cincinnati, 
Ohio; Hempl, Geo., University of Michigan; Huss, H. C. O., Princeton College, N. J. ; 
VON Jagemann, H. C. G., Harvard University; Karsten, Gustaf, University of Indiana, 
Ind.; Lang, Henry R., The Swain Free School, Mass.; Learned, M. D., Johns Hopkins 
University, Md. ; Leyh, Edw. F., Baltimore, Md. ; Lodeman, A., State Normal School, 
Mich. ; Morfill, W. R., Oxford, England; McCABE, T., Johns Hopkins University, Md. ; 
McElroy, John G. R., University of Pennsylvania, Pa. ; O'Connor, B. F., Columbia Col- 
lege, N. Y. ; Primer, Sylvester, Providence, R. L; Schele De Vere, M., University of 
Virginia, Va. ; Schilling, Hugo, Wittenberg College, Ohio; Sheldon, Edw. S., Harvard 
University, Mass.; Shepherd, H. E., College of Charleston, S. C. ; Schmidt, H., Univer- 
sity of Deseret, Salt Lake City, Utah ; Sievers, Eduard, University of Tubingen, Ger- 
many ; Smyth, A. H., High School of Philadephia, Pa. ; Stoddard, Francis H., University 
of City of New York; Sturzinger, J. J., Bryn Mawr College, Pa.; Thomas, Calvin, 
University of Michigan, Mich. ; Walter, E. L., University of Michigan, Mich. ; WARREN, 
F. M., Johns Hopkins University, Md. ; WHITE, H. S., Cornell University, N. Y. 

Subscription Price $1.50 per Annum, Payable in Advance. 

Foreign Countries $1.75 per Annum. 

Single Copies Twenty Cents. Specimen Pages sent on Application. 

Subscriptions, advertisements and all business communications should be addressed 
to the 

MANAGING EDITOR OF MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES, 

Johns Hopkins university, Baltimore, Md. 



American Economic Association. 



PUBLICATIONS. 

A series of monographs on a great variety of economic 
subjects, treated in a scientific manner by authors well 
known in the line of work they here represent. 

Among the subjects presented are Cooperation, Socialism, 
the Laboring Classes, Wages, Capital, Money, Finance, 
Statistics, Prices, the Relation of the State and Municipality 
to Private Industry and various Public Works, the Railway 
Question, Road Legislation, the English Woolen Industry, 
and numerous other topics of a like nature. 

The latest publication is that for January, 1892, — Vol. 
VII, 3STo. 1,— entitled : 

The Silver Situation in the United States. 

By F. W. Taussig, LL. B., Ph. D., 

Assistant Professor of Political Economy in Harvard University 
118 pages, Svo. Price, Seventy-five cents. 

Six volumes of these publications, containing thirty- six 
numbers, are now complete. 

The volumes will be sent, bound in cloth, at $5 each ; any 
two for $9 ; any three for $13 ; any four for $17 ; any five 
for $21 ; all six for $25, and including subscription to Vol. 
VII, $29. Unbound, $4 per volume. A few copies bound 
in half -morocco are offered at $5.50 each ; any two for $10 ; 
any three for $14.50; any four for $19.00; any five for 
$23.50; all six for $28. 

Annual membership $3 ; life membership $50. 

Orders and remittances should be sent to the 
Publication Agent, American Economic Association, 
Baltimore, Md. 



STUDIES 1H HISTORY, ECQKOMtCS AND PUBLIC LAW 



EDITED BY 



THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 
OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE. 



The monographs are chosen mainly from among the 
doctors' dissertations in Political Science, but are not 
necessarily confined to these. Only those studies are 
included which form a distinct contribution to science 
and which are positive works of original research. The 
monographs are published at irregular intervals, but are 
paged consecutively as well as separately, so as to form 
completed volumes. 

The first four numbers in the series are : 

1. The Divorce Problem— A Study in Statistics. By 
Walter F. Willcox, Ph. D. Price, 50 cents. 

2. The History of Tariff Administration in the United 
States, from Colonial Times to the McKinley Administra- 
tive Bill. By John Dean Goss, Ph. D. Price, 50 cents. 

3. History of Municipal Land Ownership on Manhattan 
Island. By George Ashton Black, Ph. D. Price, 50 cents. 

4. Financial History of Massachusetts. By Charles H. 
J. Douglas. Price, $1.00. 

Volume I. complete. Price, $2.00. 

Other numbers will be announced hereafter. 
For further particulars apply to 

PROFESSOR EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, 

Columbia College, New York. 




COLLEGE 

OK 

Social Economics 

34 UNION SQUARE, 

NEW YORK. 



GEORGE GUNTON, President. 



THE COIyl^fiGL was organized primarily 
to teach a system of Social Economics 
suited to American Citizenship. 

The Academic Course includes, besides 
Economics, History, English Language at 
Literature, Modern Languages, some of the 
higher Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, 
Parliamentary Law, etc. There is also a 
a Commercial Course occupying one year. 
The Lecture Courses by President 
Gunton embrace Popular Discussions of 
Economics. 

The "Social Economist," a monthly magazine edited «by President Gunton and Starr 
Hoyt Nichols, treats subjects allied to Economics. The price is 20 cents per copy or J2.00 per 

annum. Sold by all dealers. Sample copies free. 

This institution having outgrown its former quarters, the large building represented 
above has been secured, where commodious Class Rooms and Lecture Hall are arranged ; also 
Editorial Rooms for the "Social Economist." Tuition fees are low on account of a liberal 
endowment. Prospectus sent on application. Address 

J. O. WOODS, Business Manager- 



SOCIAL ECONOMIST BUILDING. 



There will soon be issued from the Johns Hopkins Press of Baltimore, a work 
entitled 

AMERICA : 

Its Geographical History, 1492 to the Present, 

By DR. WALTER B. SCAIFE, 



which invites attention to the much-neglected borderland that unites history and 
geography. 

Starting with the discovery of Guanahani in 1492, it shows, by reference to 
maps aud writings of the sixteenth century, the gradual evolution of the Atlantic 
and Pacific coast-lines in the consciousness of Europe. The third chapter sketches 
the slow growth of knowledge in Europe regarding the vast interior of the 
American continents and of the polar regions. There is a full discussion of the 
historical uses and the theories as to the origin of the names America, Canada, 
and Brazil. The history of our border lines, national and state, then engages the 
writer's attention ; who passes from that subject to the geographica 1 work of the 
national government, in treating which he has been aided by much information 
furnished direct from the offices of the Coast and Geological Surveys. In a Supple- 
ment Dr. Scaife undertakes to prove, contrary to the general opinion, that the 
Mississippi River is not always or even usually to be understood when the Spanish 
geographers mention the Rio del Espiritu Santo. The work will be illustrated by 
phototypes made from photographs of the famous Weimar and other maps, taken 
specially for the author. The volume will be sold for $1.50. 



NOTES SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE STUDIES. 

The publication of a series of Notes was begun in January, 1889. The 
following have thus far been issued : 

MUNICIPAL, GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND. By Dr. ALBERT SHAW, of Minne- 
apolis, Reader on Municipal Government, J. H. U. 

SOCIAL WORK IN AUSTRALIA AND LONDON. By WILLIAM GREY, of the 
Denison Club, London. 

ENCOURAGEMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION. By Professor Herbert B. 
Adams. 

THE PROBLEM OF CITY GOVERNMENT. By Hon. Seth LOW, President of 
Columbia College. 

THE LIBRARIES OF BALTIMORE. By Mr. P. R. Uhler, of the Peabody In- 
stitute. 

WORK AMONG THE WORKINGWOMEN IN BALTIMORE. By Professor 
H. B. ADAMS. 

CHARITIES : THE RELATION OF THE STATE, THE CITY, AND THE 
INDIVIDUAL TO MODERN PHILANTHROPIC WORK. By A. G. WARNER, 
Ph. D., sometime General Secretary of the Charity Organization Society of Baltimore, now 
Associate Professor in the University of Nebraska. 

LAW AND HISTORY. By Walter B. SCAIFE, LL. B., Ph. D. (Vienna), Reader on 
Historical Geography in the Johns Hopkins University. 

THE NEEDS OF SELF-SUPPORTING WOMEN. By Miss CLARE DE GRAF- 
EENREID, of the Department of Labor, Washington, D. C. 

THE ENOCH PRATT FREE LIBRARY. By LEWIS H. STEINER, Litt. D. 

EARLY PRESBYTERIAN ISM IN MARYLAND. By Rev. J. W. MclLVAIN. 

THE EDUCATIONAL ASPECT OF THE U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM. By 
Professor 0. T. MASON. 

UNIVERSITY EXTENSION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FUTURE. 
By Richard G. Moulton. 

These Notes are sent without charge to regular subscribers to the Studies. They are sold at five 
cents each; twenty-five copies will be furnished for $1.00. 



ANNUAL SERIES, 1883-1891. 

Nine Series of the University Studies are now complete and will be 
sold, bound in cloth, as follows : 

SERIES I.— LOCAL INSTITUTIONS. 479 pp. $4.00. 

SERIES II.— INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMICS. 629 pp. $4.00. 

SERIES III.— MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AND WASHINGTON. 595 pp. $4.00. 

SERIES IV MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT AND LAND TENURE. 600 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES V.— MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, HISTORY AND POLITICS. 559 
pp. $3.50. 

SERIES VI.— THE HISTORY OF CO-OPERATION IN THE UNITED 
STATES. 540 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES VII.-SOCIAL SCIENCE, MUNICIPAL AND FEDERAL GOVERN- 
MENT. 628 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES VIII.— HISTORY, POLITICS, AND EDUCATION. 625 pp. $3.50. 

SERIES IX.— EDUCATION, POLITICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. 640 pp. 
$3.50. 

The set of nine volumes is now offered, uniformly bound in cloth, for library use, for $27.00. 
The nine volumes, with eleven extra volumes, twenty volumes in cloth, for $42.00. The eleven 
extra volumes (now ready) will be furnished together for $16.00. 



All business communications should be addressed to The Johns Hop- 
kins Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Subscriptions will also be received, 
or single copies furnished by any of the following 

American Agents: 

New York.— G. P. Putnam's Sons. Cincinnati.— Robert Clarke & Co. 

New Haven.— E. P. Judd. Indianapolis.— Bowen-Merrill Co. 

Boston.— Damrell & Upham ; W. B. Clarke Chicago.— A. C. McClurg & Co. 

& Co. Louisville.— Flexner Brothers. 

Providence.— Tibbitts & Preston. San Francisco.— Bancroft Company. 

Philadelphia.— Porter & Coates ; J. B. New Orleans.— George F. Wharton. 

Lippincott Co. Richmond.— J. W. Randolph & Co. 

"Washington.— W. H. Lowdermilk & Co.; Toronto.— Carswell Co. (Limited). 

Brentano's. Montreal.— William Foster Brown & Co. 

European Agents : 

Paris.— A. Hermann ; Em. Terquem. London.— Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner 

Strasshurg.— Karl J. Trtibner. & Co.; G. P. Putanm's Sons. 

Berlin. — Puttkammer & Miihlbrecht ; Frankfort.— Joseph Baer & Co. 

Mayer & Muller: Turin, Florence, and Rome.— E. Loe- 

Leipzig.— F. A. Brockhaus. scher. 



THE REPUBLIC OF NEW HAVEN. 

A HISTORY OF MUNICIPAL EVOLUTION. 
By CHARLES H. LEVERMORE, Ph. D. 

{Extra Volume One of Studies in Historical and Political Science.) 
The volume comprises 342 pages octavo, with various diagrams and an index. 
It will be sold, bound in cloth, at $2.00. 



PHILADELPHIA, 1681-1887: 

A HISTORY OF MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT. 

By Edward P. Allikson", A. M., and Boies Penrose, A. B. 

{Extra Volume Two of Studies in Historical and Political Science.) 
The volume comprises 444 pages octavo, and will be sold, bound in cloth, at 
$3.00 ; in law-sheep at $3.50. 



Baltimore andtlie Nineteenth of April, 1861. 

A STUDY OF THE WAR. 
By GEORGE WILLIAM BROWN, 

Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore, and Mayor of the City in 1861. 
{Extra Volume Three of Studies in Historical and Political Science.) 
The volume comprises 176 pages octavo, and will be sold, bound in cloth, at$l. 



Local Constitutional History of tie United States, 

By GEORGE E. HOWARD, 

Professor of History in the University of Nebraska. 
{Extra Volumes Four and Five of Studies in Historical and Political Science.) 
Volume I. — Development of the Township, Hundred and Shire. Now 

ready. 542 pp. 8vo. Cloth. Price, $3.00. 
Volume II. — Development of the City and Local Magistracies. In prepa- 
ration. 



THE NEGRO IN MARYLAND 

A STUDY OF THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY. 
By JEFFREY R. BRACKETT, Ph. D. 

{Extra Volume Six of Studies in Historical and Political Science.) 
270 pages octavo, in cloth. $2.00. 



The extra volumes are sold at reduced rates to regular subscribers to the 
Studies." 



The Supreme Court of the United States. 

Its History and Influence in our Constitutional System. 

By W. W. Willoughby, Ph. D. 

Extra Vol. VII of the Studies in History and Politics. 

134 pages. 8vo. Cloth. Price, $1. 25. 



The Intercourse between the U.S. and Japan. 

By Inazo (Ota) Nitobe, Ph.D., 

Associate Professor, Sapporo, Japan. 

Extra Vol. VIII of the Studies in History and Politics. 

198 pages. 8vo. Cloth. Price, $1.35. 



State and Federal Government in Switzerland. 

By John Martin Vincent, Ph. D., 

Librarian and Instructor in the Department of History and Politics, Johns Hopkins University. 

Extra Vol. IX of the Studies in History and Politics. 

335 pages. 8vo. Cloth. Price, $1.50. 

In view of the fact that the six-hundredth anniversary of the foundation of Federal 
Government in Switzerland is celebrated in 1891, this may be considered a timely 
book. The history and constitutional experiments of Switzerland have, however, 
a perennial interest for Americans, for in no other country do governmental institu- 
tions approach more closely, in form and principle, those found in the United States. 
The present work is essentially a study of modern institutions, but always* with 
reference to their source and development. 



Spanish Institutions of the Southwest. 

By FRANK W. BLACKMAR, Ph. D. 
Professor of History and Sociology in the Kansas State University. 

Extra Vol. X of the Studies in History and Politics. 

• 380 pages. 8vo. Cloth. Price, $3.00. 

With Thirty-one Historical Illustrations of old Spanish Missions, etc., and a map 
showing the extent of Spanish Possessions in North America in 1783. 

This work is a study of the Social and Political Institutions of Spain, as represented 
by the life of the Spanish colonists in America. A sufficient amount of descriptive 
history is given to relieve the subject from the monotony of abstract discussion and 
to subtantiate all conclusions reached by the writer. The book treats of the founding 
of the Spanish missions in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and portrays 
the civilization established by the padres, the social condition of the Indians, and 
the political and social life of the pioneers of the Southwest. It represents the 
government, laws, municipal organization, and life of the colonists. The movement 
of the civil, religious, and military powers in the " temporal and spiritual conquest," 
and the consequent founding of civic pueblos, missions and military towns are fully 
discussed. 

There are thirty-one illustrations, chiefly historical. They reveal some of the 
most picturesque ruins of America. 

Orders should be addressed to The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 



NEW EXTRA VOLUMES NOW READY. 



An Introduction to the Study of the Constitution. 

A STUDY SHOWING THE PLAY OF PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL FACTOKS 
IN THE CREATION OF INSTITUTIONAL LAW. 

By MORRIS M. COHN, 

Attorney-at-Law. 

250 pages. 8vo. Cloth. Price, $1.50. 

The theory underlying this work is that Constitutions, whether written 
or unwritten, represent the institutional growth of social communities ; 
especially that institutional growth which is revealed in the govern- 
mental structure and maxims, and the jurisprudence, of the given com- 
munity. 

The aim of the author has been to show with somewhat less detail than 
has been adopted in more voluminous productions, yet with sufficient 
breadth of outline, the general prevalence of constitutional institutions 
among peoples who have made any advance at all in political organization. 

The illustrations of the subject have been taken principally from the 
fields of politics and jurisprudence, though when required, or when it 
seemed to the author appropriate, other sources were utilized. 



THE OLD ENGLISH MANOR. 

By C. M. ANDREWS, Ph. D., 

Associate in History, Bryn Mawr College. 

280 pages, Svo. Cloth. Price, $1.50. 

This work is an attempt to reconstruct the village and manorial organization 
and life in England at the beginning of the eleventh century. The study is 
based largely on the well known documents Reditudines Singularum Perso- 
narum and Gferefa, the latter of which has never before been used for historical 
purposes. In addition all Anglo-Saxon literature has been put under contribu- 
tion, that the study might be as complete as possible. Such reconstruction has 
more than a merely antiquarian interest, for it relates to an important period 
of English economic history. It shows the complete isolation of local life, the 
preeminence of agriculture, and the secondary importance of craft and artisan 
work. It brings Anglo-Saxon farming methods into line with post-Norman and 
shows the tenacity of the old life and custom, crude and uneconomical as it 
was, uninfluenced to any great extent by the Norman Conquest. In the intro- 
duction the writer discusses the origin of the manor, suggesting points of view 
somewhat different from those ordinarily received by the Germanic school, but 
supporting, in opposition to Mr. Seebohm, the freedom of the village community. 



LBFe'07 



JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 



IN 



Historical and Political Science 

HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor 



History is past Politics and Politics present History.— Freeman 



TENTH SERIES 



VII 



Maryland's Attitude in the 
Struggle for Canada 



By J. WILLIAM BLACK, Ph. D. 

Associate Professor of Political Economy, Oberlin College. 



baltimore 
The Johns Hopkins Press 

PUBLISHED MONTHLY 

July, 1893 

PRICE FIFTY CENTS. 



JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 

IN 

Historical and Political Science. 

Heebekt B. Adams, Editor. 

Neither the University nor the Editor assumes responsibility for the views of contributors. 

FIRST SERIES.— Local Institutions.— 1883.— $4.00. 

I. An Introduction to American Institutional History. By Edward A. 

Freeman. 25 cents. 

II. The Germanic Origin of New England Towns. By H. B. Adams. 50 cts. 

III. Local Government in Illinois. By Albert Shaw. — Local Government 

in Pennsylvania. By E. R, L. Gould. 30 cents. 

IV. Saxon Tithingmen in America. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. 

V. Local Government in Michigan, and the Northwest. By E. W. Bemis. 

25 cents. 

VI. Parish Institutions of Maryland. By Edward Ingle. 40 cents. 

VII. Old Maryland Manors. By John Hemsley Johnson. 30 cents. 

VIII. Norman Constables in America. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. 
IX-X. Village Communities of Cape Ann and Salem. By H. B. Adams. 50 cts. 

XI. The Genesis of a New England State (Connecticut). By Alexander 

Johnston. 30 cents. 

XII. Local Government and Free Schools in South Carolina. By B. J. 

Eamage. 40 cents. 

SECOND SERIES.— Institutions and Economics.— 1884. 

—$4.00. 

I-II. Methods of Historical Study. By H. B. Adams. 50 cents. 

III. The Past and the Present of Political Economy. By R. T. Ely. 35 cts. 

IV. Samuel Adams, The Man of the Town Meeting. By James K. Hosmer. 

35 cents. 
V-VI. Taxation in the United States. By Henry Carter Adams. 50 cents. 
VII. Institutional Beginnings in a Western State. By Jesse Macy. 25 cts. 
VIII-IX. Indian Money as a Factor in New England Civilization. By 

William B. Weeden. 50 cents. 

X. Town and County Government in the English Colonies of North 

America. By Edward Channing. 50 cents. 

XI. Rudimentary Society among Boys. By J. Hemsley Johnson. 50 cents. 

XII. Land Laws of Mining Districts. By C. H. Shinn. 50 cents. 

THIRD SERIES.— Maryland, Virginia and 
Washington.— 1885.— $4.00. 

I. Maryland's Influence upon Land Cessions to the United States. 
George Washington's Interest in Western Lands, the Potomac Company, 
and a National University. By H. B. Adams. 75 cents. 

II-III. Virginia Local Institutions .-—The Land System; Hundred; Par- 
ish ; County ; Town. By E. Ingle. 75 cents. 

IV. Recent American Socialism. By Richard T. Ely. 50 cents. 

V-VI-VII. Maryland Local Institutions: — The Land System; Hundred; 
County; Town. By Lewis W. Wilhelm. $1.00. 

VIII. The Influence of the Proprietors in Founding the State of New 
Jersey. By Austin Scott. 25 cents. 

IX-X. American Constitutions ; The Relations of the Three Departments 
as Adjusted by a Century. By Horace Davis. 50 cents. 

XI-XII. The City of Washington. By J. A. Porter. 50 cents. 

{Continued on third page of cover.) 



FOURTH SERIES.— Municipal Government and 
Land Tenure.— 1886.— $3.50. 

I. Dutch Village Communities on the Hudson River. By I. Elting. 50 cts. 
II-III. Town Government in Rhode Island. By W. E. Foster.— The 
Narragansett Planters. By Edward (Jhanning. 50 cents. 

IV. Pennsylvania Boroughs. By William P.'Holcomb. 50 cents. 

V. Introduction to the Constitutional and Political History of the Individual 

States. By J. P. Jameson. 50 cents. 

VI. The Puritan Colony at Annapolis, Maryland. By D. R. Randall. 50 cts. 
VII-VIII-IX. History of the Land Question in the United States. By 

Shosuke Sato. $1.00. 
X. The Town and City Government of New Haven. By Charles H. Lev- 

ermore. 50 cents. 
XI-XII. The Land System of the New England Colonies. By Melville 

Egleston. . 50 cents. 

FIFTH SERIES.— Municipal Government, 
History and Politics.— 1887.— $3.50. 

I-II. City Government of Philadelphia. By Edward P. Allinson and Boies 
Penrose. 50 cents. 

III. City Government of Boston. By James M. Bugbee. 25 cents. 

IV. City Government of St. Louis. By Marshall S. Snow. 25 cents. 
V-VI. Local Government in Canada. By John George Bourinot. 50 cents. 

VII. The Influence of the War of 1812 upon the Consolidation of the 
American Union. By Nicholas Murray Butler. 25 cents. 

VIII. Notes on the Literature of Charities. By Herbert B. Adams. 25 cents. 

IX. The Predictions of Hamilton and De Tocqueville. By James Bryce. 

25 cents. 

X. The Study of History in England and Scotland. By P. Fredericq. 25 cts. 

XI. Seminary Libraries and University Extension. By H. B. Adams. 
¥ 25 cents. 

XII. European Schools of History and Politics. By A. D. White. 25 cts. 

SIXTH SERIES.— The History of Co-operation in 
the United States.— 1888.— $3.50. 

SEVENTH SERIES.— Social Science, Education and 
Government.— 1889— $3.50. 

I. Arnold Toynbee. By F. C. Montague- With an Account of the Work of 

Toy n bee Hall in East London, by Philip Lyttelton G-ell. 50 cents. 
II-III. The Establishment of Municipal Government in San Francisco. 

By Bernard Moses. 50 cents. 
IV. The City Government of New Orleans. By William W. Howe. 25 cents. 
V-VI. English Culture in Virginia : A Study of the Gilmer Letters, etc. 

By William P. Trent. $1.00. 
VII-VIII-IX. The River Towns of Connecticut. Wethersfield, Hartford 

and Windsor. "By Charles M. Andrews. $1.00. 
X-XI-XII. Federal Government in Canada. By John G. Bourinot. $1.00. 

EIGHTH SERIES.-History, Politics and 
Education.— 1890.— $3.50. 

I-II. The Beginnings of American Nationality. By A. W. Small. $1.00. 

III. Local Government in Wisconsin. By D. B. Spencer. 25 cents. 

IV. Spanish Colonization in the Southwest. By F. W. Blackmar. 50 cts. 



V-VI. The Study of History in Germany and France. By P. Fredericq. 

$1.00. 

VII-VIII-IX. Progress of the Colored People of Maryland since the War. 
By Jeffrey R. Brackett. $1.00. 

X. The Study of History in Belgium and Holland. By P. Fredericq. 50 cts. 

XI-XII. Seminary Notes on Recent Historical Literature. By H. B. Adams, 
J. M. Vincent, W. B. Scaife, and others. 50 cents. 

NINTH SERIES— Education, History, Politics, and 
Social Science.— 1891.— $3.50. 

I-II. Government and Administration of the United States. By W. W. 

Willoughby and W. F. Willoughby. 75 cents. Interleaved edition 
for notes, $1.25. 

III-IV. University Education in Maryland. By B. C.'Steiner. The Johns 
Hopkins University (1876-1891). By D. 0. Oilman. With Supple- 
mentary Notes on University Extension. By R. Gr. Moulton. 50 cents. 

V-VI. Development of Municipal Unity in the Lombard Communes. By 
William K. Williams. 50 cents. 

VII-VIII. Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Roman Republic. 
By Andrew Stephenson. 75 cents. 

IX. Constitutional Development of Japan. (1853-1881.) By Toyokighi 

Iyenaga. 50 cents. 

X. A History of Liberia. By J. H. T. McPherson. 50 cents. 

XI-XII. The Character and Influence of the Indian Trade in Wisconsin. 
By Frederick Jackson Turner. 50 cents. 

TENTH SERIES.— 1892.— Subscription, $3.00. 

I. The Bishop Hill Colony : A Religious Communistic Settlement in 
Henry County, Illinois. By Michael A. Mikkelsen. Paper, 50 cents. 
Cloth, 75 cents. 

II-III. Church and State in New England. By Paul E. Lauer. Paper, 
50 cents. Cloth, 75 cents. 

IV. Church and State in Maryland. By George Petrie. Paper, 50 cents. 

V-VI. The Religious Development in the Province of North Carolina. 
By Stephen B. Weeks. Paper, 50 cents. 

VII. Maryland's Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. By John W. 
Black. Paper, 50 cents. 

VIII. The Quakers in Pennsylvania. By Albert Clayton Applegarth. 

Causes of the American Revolution. By James Albert Woodburn. 

Local Government in the South and Southwest. By Edward W. Bemis and 
others. 

Other papers will be announced from time to time. 

The set of nine series is now offered, uniformly bound in cloth, for library 
use, for $27, and including subscriptions to the current (tenth) series, $30. 
-The nine series, with eleven extra volumes, altogether twenty volumes, 
in cloth as above, for $42.00. 

The eleven extra volumes will be furnished together for $16.00. 



All business communications should be addressed to THE JOHNS 
HOPKINS PRESS, Baltimore, Maryland. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2010 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




01 1 695 896 A % 



